When four years ago we met to inaugurate a President, the Republic, single-minded in anxiety, stood in spirit here. We dedicated
ourselves to the fulfillment of a vision-to speed the time when there would be for all the people that security and peace
essential to the pursuit of happiness. We of the Republic pledged ourselves to drive from the temple of our ancient faith
those who had profaned it; to end by action, tireless and unafraid, the stagnation and despair of that day. We did those first
things first.

Our covenant with ourselves did not stop there. Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government
the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated
attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had
been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant
instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces
and blindly selfish men.

We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters
once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way
to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease.
We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.

In this we Americans were discovering no wholly new truth; we were writing a new chapter in our book of self-government.

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Constitutional Convention which made us a nation. At that
Convention our forefathers found the way out of the chaos which followed the Revolutionary War; they created a strong government
with powers of united action sufficient then and now to solve problems utterly beyond individual or local solution. A century
and a half ago they established the Federal Government in order to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to the American people.

Today we invoke those same powers of government to achieve the same objectives.

Four years of new experience have not belied our historic instinct. They hold out the clear hope that government within communities,
government within the separate States, and government of the United States can do the things the times require, without yielding
its democracy. Our tasks in the last four years did not force democracy to take a holiday.

Nearly all of us recognize that as intricacies of human relationships increase, so power to govern them also must increase-power
to stop evil; power to do good. The essential democracy of our Nation and the safety of our people depend not upon the absence
of power, but upon lodging it with those whom the people can change or continue at stated intervals through an honest and
free system of elections. The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.

In fact, in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic; for we have begun to bring private
autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public's government. The legend that they were invincible-above and
beyond the processes of a democracy-has been shattered. They have been challenged and beaten.

Our progress out of the depression is obvious. But that is not all that you and I mean by the new order of things. Our pledge was not merely to do a patchwork
job with secondhand materials. By using the new materials of social justice we have undertaken to erect on the old foundations
a more enduring structure for the better use of future generations.

In that purpose we have been helped by achievements of mind and spirit. Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been
unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the
collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality
pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an
instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

This new understanding undermines the old admiration of worldly success as such. We are beginning to abandon our tolerance
of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.

In this process evil things formerly accepted will not be so easily condoned. Hard-headedness will not so easily excuse hard-heartedness.
We are moving toward an era of good feeling. But we realize that there can be no era of good feeling save among men of good
will.

For these reasons I am justified in believing that the greatest change we have witnessed has been the change in the moral
climate of America.

Among men of good will, science and democracy together offer an ever-richer life and ever-larger satisfaction to the individual.
With this change in our moral climate and our rediscovered ability to improve our economic order, we have set our feet upon
the road of enduring progress.

Shall we pause now and turn our back upon the road that lies ahead? Shall we call this the promised land? Or, shall we continue
on our way? For "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth."

Many voices are heard as we face a great decision. Comfort says, "Tarry a while." Opportunism says, "This is a good spot."
Timidity asks, "How difficult is the road ahead?"

True, we have come far from the days of stagnation and despair. Vitality has been preserved. Courage and confidence have been
restored. Mental and moral horizons have been extended.

But our present gains were won under the pressure of more than ordinary circumstances. Advance became imperative under the
goad of fear and suffering. The times were on the side of progress.

To hold to progress today, however, is more difficult. Dulled conscience, irresponsibility, and ruthless self-interest already
reappear. Such symptoms of prosperity may become portents of disaster! Prosperity already tests the persistence of our progressive
purpose.

Let us ask again: Have we reached the goal of our vision of that fourth day of March 1933? Have we found our happy valley?

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. Its hundred and thirty million
people are at peace among themselves; they are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a United States
which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume
of human comforts hitherto unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens-a substantial part of its
whole population-who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities
of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society
half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness
to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope-because the Nation, seeing and understanding
the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country's
interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test
of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those
who have too little.

If I know aught of the spirit and purpose of our Nation, we will not listen to Comfort, Opportunism, and Timidity. We will
carry on.

Overwhelmingly, we of the Republic are men and women of good will; men and women who have more than warm hearts of dedication;
men and women who have cool heads and willing hands of practical purpose as well. They will insist that every agency of popular
government use effective instruments to carry out their will.

Government is competent when all who compose it work as trustees for the whole people. It can make constant progress when
it keeps abreast of all the facts. It can obtain justified support and legitimate criticism when the people receive true information
of all that government does.

If I know aught of the will of our people, they will demand that these conditions of effective government shall be created
and maintained. They will demand a nation uncorrupted by cancers of injustice and, therefore, strong among the nations in
its example of the will to peace.

Today we reconsecrate our country to long-cherished ideals in a suddenly changed civilization. In every land there are always
at work forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But
in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people.

To maintain a democracy of effort requires a vast amount of patience in dealing with differing methods, a vast amount of humility.
But out of the confusion of many voices rises an understanding of dominant public need. Then political leadership can voice
common ideals, and aid in their realization.

In taking again the oath of office as President of the United States, I assume the solemn obligation of leading the American
people forward along the road over which they have chosen to advance.

While this duty rests upon me I shall do my utmost to speak their purpose and to do their will, seeking Divine guidance to
help us each and every one to give light to them that sit in darkness and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

About to undertake the arduous duties that I have been appointed to perform by the choice of a free people, I avail myself
of this customary and solemn occasion to express the gratitude which their confidence inspires and to acknowledge the accountability
which my situation enjoins. While the magnitude of their interests convinces me that no thanks can be adequate to the honor
they have conferred, it admonishes me that the best return I can make is the zealous dedication of my humble abilities to
their service and their good.

As the instrument of the Federal Constitution it will devolve on me for a stated period to execute the laws of the United
States, to superintend their foreign and their confederate relations, to manage their revenue, to command their forces, and,
by communications to the Legislature, to watch over and to promote their interests generally. And the principles of action
by which I shall endeavor to accomplish this circle of duties it is now proper for me briefly to explain.

In administering the laws of Congress I shall keep steadily in view the limitations as well as the extent of the Executive
power, trusting thereby to discharge the functions of my office without transcending its authority. With foreign nations it
will be my study to preserve peace and to cultivate friendship on fair and honorable terms, and in the adjustment of any differences
that may exist or arise to exhibit the forbearance becoming a powerful nation rather than the sensibility belonging to a gallant
people.

In such measures as I may be called on to pursue in regard to the rights of the separate States I hope to be animated by a
proper respect for those sovereign members of our Union, taking care not to confound the powers they have reserved to themselves
with those they have granted to the Confederacy.

The management of the public revenue-that searching operation in all governments-is among the most delicate and important
trusts in ours, and it will, of course, demand no inconsiderable share of my official solicitude. Under every aspect in which
it can be considered it would appear that advantage must result from the observance of a strict and faithful economy. This
I shall aim at the more anxiously both because it will facilitate the extinguishment of the national debt, the unnecessary
duration of which is incompatible with real independence, and because it will counteract that tendency to public and private
profligacy which a profuse expenditure of money by the Government is but too apt to engender. Powerful auxiliaries to the
attainment of this desirable end are to be found in the regulations provided by the wisdom of Congress for the specific appropriation
of public money and the prompt accountability of public officers.

With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of impost with a view to revenue, it would seem to me that the spirit of
equity, caution, and compromise in which the Constitution was formed requires that the great interests of agriculture, commerce,
and manufactures should be equally favored, and that perhaps the only exception to this rule should consist in the peculiar
encouragement of any products of either of them that may be found essential to our national independence.

Internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they can be promoted by the constitutional acts of the Federal
Government, are of high importance.

Considering standing armies as dangerous to free governments in time of peace, I shall not seek to enlarge our present establishment,
nor disregard that salutary lesson of political experience which teaches that the military should be held subordinate to the
civil power. The gradual increase of our Navy, whose flag has displayed in distant climes our skill in navigation and our
fame in arms; the preservation of our forts, arsenals, and dockyards, and the introduction of progressive improvements in
the discipline and science of both branches of our military service are so plainly prescribed by prudence that I should be
excused for omitting their mention sooner than for enlarging on their importance. But the bulwark of our defense is the national
militia, which in the present state of our intelligence and population must render us invincible. As long as our Government
is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person
and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending
a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected
to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system,
therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.

It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy,
and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our
Government and the feelings of our people.

The recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of Executive duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked,
the task of reform, which will require particularly the correction of those abuses that have brought the patronage of the
Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have disturbed
the rightful course of appointment and have placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands.

In the performance of a task thus generally delineated I shall endeavor to select men whose diligence and talents will insure
in their respective stations able and faithful cooperation, depending for the advancement of the public service more on the
integrity and zeal of the public officers than on their numbers.

A diffidence, perhaps too just, in my own qualifications will teach me to look with reverence to the examples of public virtue
left by my illustrious predecessors, and with veneration to the lights that flow from the mind that founded and the mind that
reformed our system. The same diffidence induces me to hope for instruction and aid from the coordinate branches of the Government,
and for the indulgence and support of my fellow-citizens generally. And a firm reliance on the goodness of that Power whose
providence mercifully protected our national infancy, and has since upheld our liberties in various vicissitudes, encourages
me to offer up my ardent supplications that He will continue to make our beloved country the object of His divine care and
gracious benediction.

In compliance with an usage coeval with the existence of our Federal Constitution, and sanctioned by the example of my predecessors in the career upon which I am about to enter, I appear, my fellow-citizens,
in your presence and in that of Heaven to bind myself by the solemnities of religious obligation to the faithful performance
of the duties allotted to me in the station to which I have been called.

In unfolding to my countrymen the principles by which I shall be governed in the fulfillment of those duties my first resort
will be to that Constitution which I shall swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend. That revered
instrument enumerates the powers and prescribes the duties of the Executive Magistrate, and in its first words declares the
purposes to which these and the whole action of the Government instituted by it should be invariably and sacredly devoted-to
form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people of this Union in their successive generations. Since the adoption
of this social compact one of these generations has passed away. It is the work of our forefathers. Administered by some of
the most eminent men who contributed to its formation, through a most eventful period in the annals of the world, and through
all the vicissitudes of peace and war incidental to the condition of associated man, it has not disappointed the hopes and
aspirations of those illustrious benefactors of their age and nation. It has promoted the lasting welfare of that country
so dear to us all; it has to an extent far beyond the ordinary lot of humanity secured the freedom and happiness of this people.
We now receive it as a precious inheritance from those to whom we are indebted for its establishment, doubly bound by the
examples which they have left us and by the blessings which we have enjoyed as the fruits of their labors to transmit the
same unimpaired to the succeeding generation.

In the compass of thirty-six years since this great national covenant was instituted a body of laws enacted under its authority
and in conformity with its provisions has unfolded its powers and carried into practical operation its effective energies.
Subordinate departments have distributed the executive functions in their various relations to foreign affairs, to the revenue
and expenditures, and to the military force of the Union by land and sea. A coordinate department of the judiciary has expounded
the Constitution and the laws, settling in harmonious coincidence with the legislative will numerous weighty questions of
construction which the imperfection of human language had rendered unavoidable. The year of jubilee since the first formation
of our Union has just elapsed; that of the declaration of our independence is at hand. The consummation of both was effected
by this Constitution.

Since that period a population of four millions has multiplied to twelve. A territory bounded by the Mississippi has been
extended from sea to sea. New States have been admitted to the Union in numbers nearly equal to those of the first Confederation.
Treaties of peace, amity, and commerce have been concluded with the principal dominions of the earth. The people of other
nations, inhabitants of regions acquired not by conquest, but by compact, have been united with us in the participation of
our rights and duties, of our burdens and blessings. The forest has fallen by the ax of our woodsmen; the soil has been made
to teem by the tillage of our farmers; our commerce has whitened every ocean. The dominion of man over physical nature has
been extended by the invention of our artists. Liberty and law have marched hand in hand. All the purposes of human association
have been accomplished as effectively as under any other government on the globe, and at a cost little exceeding in a whole
generation the expenditure of other nations in a single year.

Such is the unexaggerated picture of our condition under a Constitution founded upon the republican principle of equal rights.
To admit that this picture has its shades is but to say that it is still the condition of men upon earth. From evil-physical,
moral, and political-it is not our claim to be exempt. We have suffered sometimes by the visitation of Heaven through disease;
often by the wrongs and injustice of other nations, even to the extremities of war; and, lastly, by dissensions among ourselves-dissensions
perhaps inseparable from the enjoyment of freedom, but which have more than once appeared to threaten the dissolution of the
Union, and with it the overthrow of all the enjoyments of our present lot and all our earthly hopes of the future. The causes
of these dissensions have been various, founded upon differences of speculation in the theory of republican government; upon
conflicting views of policy in our relations with foreign nations; upon jealousies of partial and sectional interests, aggravated
by prejudices and prepossessions which strangers to each other are ever apt to entertain.

It is a source of gratification and of encouragement to me to observe that the great result of this experiment upon the theory
of human rights has at the close of that generation by which it was formed been crowned with success equal to the most sanguine
expectations of its founders. Union, justice, tranquillity, the common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of
liberty-all have been promoted by the Government under which we have lived. Standing at this point of time, looking back to
that generation which has gone by and forward to that which is advancing, we may at once indulge in grateful exultation and
in cheering hope. From the experience of the past we derive instructive lessons for the future. Of the two great political
parties which have divided the opinions and feelings of our country, the candid and the just will now admit that both have
contributed splendid talents, spotless integrity, ardent patriotism, and disinterested sacrifices to the formation and administration
of this Government, and that both have required a liberal indulgence for a portion of human infirmity and error. The revolutionary
wars of Europe, commencing precisely at the moment when the Government of the United States first went into operation under
this Constitution, excited a collision of sentiments and of sympathies which kindled all the passions and imbittered the conflict
of parties till the nation was involved in war and the Union was shaken to its center. This time of trial embraced a period
of five and twenty years, during which the policy of the Union in its relations with Europe constituted the principal basis
of our political divisions and the most arduous part of the action of our Federal Government. With the catastrophe in which
the wars of the French Revolution terminated, and our own subsequent peace with Great Britain, this baneful weed of party
strife was uprooted. From that time no difference of principle, connected either with the theory of government or with our
intercourse with foreign nations, has existed or been called forth in force sufficient to sustain a continued combination
of parties or to give more than wholesome animation to public sentiment or legislative debate. Our political creed is, without
a dissenting voice that can be heard, that the will of the people is the source and the happiness of the people the end of
all legitimate government upon earth; that the best security for the beneficence and the best guaranty against the abuse of
power consists in the freedom, the purity, and the frequency of popular elections; that the General Government of the Union
and the separate governments of the States are all sovereignties of limited powers, fellow-servants of the same masters, uncontrolled
within their respective spheres, uncontrollable by encroachments upon each other; that the firmest security of peace is the
preparation during peace of the defenses of war; that a rigorous economy and accountability of public expenditures should
guard against the aggravation and alleviate when possible the burden of taxation; that the military should be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power; that the freedom of the press and of religious opinion should be inviolate; that the policy
of our country is peace and the ark of our salvation union are articles of faith upon which we are all now agreed. If there
have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly
management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled; if there have been projects of partial
confederacies to be erected upon the ruins of the Union, they have been scattered to the winds; if there have been dangerous
attachments to one foreign nation and antipathies against another, they have been extinguished. Ten years of peace, at home
and abroad, have assuaged the animosities of political contention and blended into harmony the most discordant elements of
public opinion. There still remains one effort of magnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made by the individuals
throughout the nation who have heretofore followed the standards of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant
of rancor against each other, of embracing as countrymen and friends, and of yielding to talents and virtue alone that confidence
which in times of contention for principle was bestowed only upon those who bore the badge of party communion.

The collisions of party spirit which originate in speculative opinions or in different views of administrative policy are
in their nature transitory. Those which are founded on geographical divisions, adverse interests of soil, climate, and modes
of domestic life are more permanent, and therefore, perhaps, more dangerous. It is this which gives inestimable value to the
character of our Government, at once federal and national. It holds out to us a perpetual admonition to preserve alike and
with equal anxiety the rights of each individual State in its own government and the rights of the whole nation in that of
the Union. Whatsoever is of domestic concernment, unconnected with the other members of the Union or with foreign lands, belongs
exclusively to the administration of the State governments. Whatsoever directly involves the rights and interests of the federative
fraternity or of foreign powers is of the resort of this General Government. The duties of both are obvious in the general
principle, though sometimes perplexed with difficulties in the detail. To respect the rights of the State governments is the
inviolable duty of that of the Union; the government of every State will feel its own obligation to respect and preserve the
rights of the whole. The prejudices everywhere too commonly entertained against distant strangers are worn away, and the jealousies
of jarring interests are allayed by the composition and functions of the great national councils annually assembled from all
quarters of the Union at this place. Here the distinguished men from every section of our country, while meeting to deliberate
upon the great interests of those by whom they are deputed, learn to estimate the talents and do justice to the virtues of
each other. The harmony of the nation is promoted and the whole Union is knit together by the sentiments of mutual respect,
the habits of social intercourse, and the ties of personal friendship formed between the representatives of its several parts
in the performance of their service at this metropolis.

Passing from this general review of the purposes and injunctions of the Federal Constitution and their results as indicating
the first traces of the path of duty in the discharge of my public trust, I turn to the Administration of my immediate predecessor
as the second. It has passed away in a period of profound peace, how much to the satisfaction of our country and to the honor
of our country's name is known to you all. The great features of its policy, in general concurrence with the will of the Legislature,
have been to cherish peace while preparing for defensive war; to yield exact justice to other nations and maintain the rights
of our own; to cherish the principles of freedom and of equal rights wherever they were proclaimed; to discharge with all
possible promptitude the national debt; to reduce within the narrowest limits of efficiency the military force; to improve
the organization and discipline of the Army; to provide and sustain a school of military science; to extend equal protection
to all the great interests of the nation; to promote the civilization of the Indian tribes, and to proceed in the great system
of internal improvements within the limits of the constitutional power of the Union. Under the pledge of these promises, made
by that eminent citizen at the time of his first induction to this office, in his career of eight years the internal taxes
have been repealed; sixty millions of the public debt have been discharged; provision has been made for the comfort and relief
of the aged and indigent among the surviving warriors of the Revolution; the regular armed force has been reduced and its
constitution revised and perfected; the accountability for the expenditure of public moneys has been made more effective;
the Floridas have been peaceably acquired, and our boundary has been extended to the Pacific Ocean; the independence of the
southern nations of this hemisphere has been recognized, and recommended by example and by counsel to the potentates of Europe;
progress has been made in the defense of the country by fortifications and the increase of the Navy, toward the effectual
suppression of the African traffic in slaves; in alluring the aboriginal hunters of our land to the cultivation of the soil
and of the mind, in exploring the interior regions of the Union, and in preparing by scientific researches and surveys for
the further application of our national resources to the internal improvement of our country.

In this brief outline of the promise and performance of my immediate predecessor the line of duty for his successor is clearly
delineated. To pursue to their consummation those purposes of improvement in our common condition instituted or recommended
by him will embrace the whole sphere of my obligations. To the topic of internal improvement, emphatically urged by him at
his inauguration, I recur with peculiar satisfaction. It is that from which I am convinced that the unborn millions of our
posterity who are in future ages to people this continent will derive their most fervent gratitude to the founders of the
Union; that in which the beneficent action of its Government will be most deeply felt and acknowledged. The magnificence and
splendor of their public works are among the imperishable glories of the ancient republics. The roads and aqueducts of Rome
have been the admiration of all after ages, and have survived thousands of years after all her conquests have been swallowed
up in despotism or become the spoil of barbarians. Some diversity of opinion has prevailed with regard to the powers of Congress
for legislation upon objects of this nature. The most respectful deference is due to doubts originating in pure patriotism
and sustained by venerated authority. But nearly twenty years have passed since the construction of the first national road
was commenced. The authority for its construction was then unquestioned. To how many thousands of our countrymen has it proved
a benefit? To what single individual has it ever proved an injury? Repeated, liberal, and candid discussions in the Legislature
have conciliated the sentiments and approximated the opinions of enlightened minds upon the question of constitutional power.
I can not but hope that by the same process of friendly, patient, and persevering deliberation all constitutional objections
will ultimately be removed. The extent and limitation of the powers of the General Government in relation to this transcendently
important interest will be settled and acknowledged to the common satisfaction of all, and every speculative scruple will
be solved by a practical public blessing.

Fellow-citizens, you are acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of the recent election, which have resulted in affording
me the opportunity of addressing you at this time. You have heard the exposition of the principles which will direct me in
the fulfillment of the high and solemn trust imposed upon me in this station. Less possessed of your confidence in advance
than any of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence.
Intentions upright and pure, a heart devoted to the welfare of our country, and the unceasing application of all the faculties
allotted to me to her service are all the pledges that I can give for the faithful performance of the arduous duties I am
to undertake. To the guidance of the legislative councils, to the assistance of the executive and subordinate departments,
to the friendly cooperation of the respective State governments, to the candid and liberal support of the people so far as
it may be deserved by honest industry and zeal, I shall look for whatever success may attend my public service; and knowing
that "except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain," with fervent supplications for His favor, to His overruling
providence I commit with humble but fearless confidence my own fate and the future destinies of my country.

After the surrender of Fort Sumter on April 14, 1861, Lincoln immediately issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 soldiers
to suppress the insurrection. At the same time he called for a special session of Congress to convene on the Fourth of July.
When the session convened, Lincoln explained the case against the South, outlined the measures he had taken against the rebellion,
and defined the purpose of the war. At this early stage, even Lincoln did not foresee the bloody and protracted struggle that
lay ahead. Lincoln's message is reprinted below.

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Having been convened on an extraordinary occasion, as authorized by the Constitution, your attention is not called to any
ordinary subject of legislation.

At the beginning of the present presidential term, four months ago, the functions of the Federal government were found to
be generally suspended within the several states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida,
excepting only those of the Post Office Department.

Within these states all the forts, arsenals, dockyards, customhouses, and the like, including the movable and stationary property
in and about them, had been seized and were held in open hostility to this government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor,
and Jefferson, on and near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The forts thus seized
had been put in improved condition, new ones had been built, and armed forces had been organized and were organizing, all
avowedly with the same hostile purpose.

The forts remaining in the possession of the Federal government in and near those states were either besieged or menaced by
warlike preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by well-protected hostile batteries, with guns equal
in quality to the best of its own and outnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one. A disproportionate share of the Federal
muskets and rifles had somehow found their way into these states, and had been seized to be used against the government. Accumulations
of the public revenue lying within them had been seized for the same object. The Navy was scattered in distant seas, leaving
but a very small part of it within the immediate reach of the government. Officers of the Federal Army and Navy had resigned
in great numbers, and, of those resigning, a large proportion had taken up arms against the government. Simultaneously and
in connection with all this the purpose to sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance with this purpose, an
ordinance had been adopted in each of these states declaring the states respectively to be separated from the national Union.
A formula for instituting a combined government of these states had been promulgated, and this illegal organization, in the
character of Confederate States, was already invoking recognition, aid, and intervention from foreign powers.

Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible,
the consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable. This choice
was made and was declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures before
a resort to any stronger ones. It sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the government
and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box. It promised a continuance of the
mails at government expense to the very people who were resisting the government, and it gave repeated pledges against any
disturbance to any of the people or any of their rights. Of all that which a President might constitutionally and justifiably
do in such a case, everything was forborne without which it was believed possible to keep the government on foot.

On the 5th of March, the present incumbent's first full day in office, a letter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter,
written on the 28th of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of March, was by that department placed in his
hands. This letter expressed the professional opinion of the writer that reenforcements could not be thrown into that fort
within the time for his relief rendered necessary by the limited supply of provisions, and with a view of holding possession
of the same, with a force of less than 20,000 good and well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the officers
of his command, and their memoranda on the subject were made enclosures of Major Anderson's letter.

The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant General Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion. On reflection,
however, he took full time, consulting with other officers, both of the Army and the Navy, and at the end of four days came
reluctantly, but decidedly, to the same conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no such sufficient force
was then at the control of the government or could be raised and brought to the ground within the time when the provisions
in the fort would be exhausted. In a purely military point of view this reduced the duty of the administration in the case
to the mere matter of getting the garrison safely out of the fort.

It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position under the circumstances would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
under which it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the
latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed. Starvation
was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be reached, Fort Pickens might be reenforced. This last would be a clear indication
of policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military necessity.

An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land but must take the longer and slower route by sea. The first return news
from the order was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was that the officer commanding
the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi-armistice of the late administration (and of the existence of which the present administration, up
to the time the order was dispatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had refused to land the troops.
To now reenforce Fort Pickens before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible, rendered so by the near exhaustion
of provisions in the latter named fort. In precaution against such a conjuncture, the government had a few days before commenced
preparing an expedition, as well-adapted as might be, to relieve Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
used or not, according to circumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it was now presented, and it was resolved
to send it forward.

As had been intended in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of South Carolina that he might expect
an attempt would be made to provision the fort, and that if the attempt should not be resisted there would be no effort to
throw in men, arms, or ammunition without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly
given, whereupon the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition.

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of
the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. They knew
-- they were expressly notified -- that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which
would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this government
desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve
the Union from actual and immediate dissolution, trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot box
for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object -- to drive out the visible
authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution.

That this was their object the executive well understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "You can have
no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains not only to keep this declaration good but also to keep
the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry as that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the affair
at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the government
began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort, sent
to that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to give the protection in whatever was lawful. In this
act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue: "Immediate dissolution or blood."

And this issue embraces more than the fate of the United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question whether
a constitutional republic, or democracy -- a government of the people by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial
integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to
control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other
pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government and thus practically put an end to free government
upon the earth. It forces us to ask -- Is there in all republics this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government of necessity
be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?

So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government and so to resist force employed for
its destruction by force for its preservation. . . .

It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called "secession"
or "rebellion." The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they knew they could never raise their
treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride
in and reverence for the history and government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They
knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced
by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly
logical steps through all the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any state of
the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right
is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.

With rebellion thus sugarcoated, they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and
until at length they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretense of taking their state out of the Union who could have been brought
to no such thing the day before.

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred
supremacy pertaining to a state -- to each state of our Federal Union. Our states have neither more nor less power than that
reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a state out of the Union. The original
ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the
Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated
a state. The new ones only took the designation of states on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for
the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent
states"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward abundantly show.

The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later,
that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been states, either in substance or in name, outside of
the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?
Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the states, but the word even is not in the national Constitution, nor, as is believed,
in any of the state constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define
it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our states, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty;
and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United
States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law
of the land.

The states have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do
so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty.
By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any
of the states, and, in fact, it created them as states. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the
Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them states, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a state constitution
independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the new states framed their constitutions before they entered
the Union, nevertheless dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.

Unquestionably the states have the powers and rights reserved to them in and by the national Constitution; but among these
surely are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but at most such only as were known in
the world at the time as governmental powers; and certainly a power to destroy the government itself had never been known
as a governmental -- as a merely administrative -- power. This relative matter of national power and state rights, as a principle,
is no other than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole -- to the general government -- while whatever concerns only
the state should be left exclusively to the state. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the national
Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to be questioned.
We are all bound by that defining without question.

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust
or absurd consequences. . . .

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a national constitution of their
own, in which of necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle
it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they
must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts or effecting any other selfish
or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly endure.

If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder
politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that
precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that
one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a
minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle
and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the
Preamble, calling itself "We, the people."

It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps,
South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not
in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured
to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are
all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election
all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .

This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and
substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders;
to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. Yielding
to partial and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.
. . .

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it our people have already settled -- the successful
establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains: its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can
fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets,
and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there
can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace, teaching
men that what they cannot take by an election neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners
of a war.

Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is to be the course of the government toward the Southern
states after the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it proper to say it will be his purpose then, as
ever, to be guided by the Constitution and the laws, and that he probably will have no different understanding of the powers
and duties of the Federal government relatively to the rights of the states and the people under the Constitution than that
expressed in the inaugural address.

He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered for all as it was administered by the men who made it.
Loyal citizens everywhere have the right to claim this of their government, and the government has no right to withhold or
neglect it. It is not perceived that in giving it there is any coercion, any conquest, or any subjugation in any just sense
of those terms.

The Constitution provides, and all the states have accepted the provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every
state in this Union a republican form of government." But if a state may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so it may
also discard the republican form of government, so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it are also lawful
and obligatory.

It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty of employing the war power in defense of the government forced
upon him. He could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the government. No compromise by public servants could
in this case be a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can long survive a marked
precedent that those who carry an election can only save the government from immediate destruction by giving up the main point
upon which the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate
decisions.

As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal
of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, not
even to count the chances of his own life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he has so far done
what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views
and your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who have been disturbed in their rights of a certain
and speedy restoration to them under the Constitution and the laws.

And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God and go forward without
fear and with manly hearts.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 6, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 20-31.

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, Senator Cook, Mrs. Eisenhower, and my fellow citizens of this great and
good country we share together:

When we met here four years ago, America was bleak in spirit, depressed by the prospect of seemingly endless war abroad and
of destructive conflict at home.

As we meet here today, we stand on the threshold of a new era of peace in the world.

The central question before us is: How shall we use that peace? Let us resolve that this era we are about to enter will not
be what other postwar periods have so often been: a time of retreat and isolation that leads to stagnation at home and invites
new danger abroad.

Let us resolve that this will be what it can become: a time of great responsibilities greatly borne, in which we renew the
spirit and the promise of America as we enter our third century as a nation.

This past year saw far-reaching results from our new policies for peace. By continuing to revitalize our traditional friendships,
and by our missions to Peking and to Moscow, we were able to establish the base for a new and more durable pattern of relationships
among the nations of the world. Because of America's bold initiatives, 1972 will be long remembered as the year of the greatest
progress since the end of World War II toward a lasting peace in the world.

The peace we seek in the world is not the flimsy peace which is merely an interlude between wars, but a peace which can endure
for generations to come.

It is important that we understand both the necessity and the limitations of America's role in maintaining that peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve the peace, there will be no peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve freedom, there will be no freedom.

But let us clearly understand the new nature of America's role, as a result of the new policies we have adopted over these
past four years.

We shall respect our treaty commitments.

We shall support vigorously the principle that no country has the right to impose its will or rule on another by force.

We shall continue, in this era of negotiation, to work for the limitation of nuclear arms, and to reduce the danger of confrontation
between the great powers.

We shall do our share in defending peace and freedom in the world. But we shall expect others to do their share.

The time has passed when America will make every other nation's conflict our own, or make every other nation's future our
responsibility, or presume to tell the people of other nations how to manage their own affairs.

Just as we respect the right of each nation to determine its own future, we also recognize the responsibility of each nation
to secure its own future.

Just as America's role is indispensable in preserving the world's peace, so is each nation's role indispensable in preserving
its own peace.

Together with the rest of the world, let us resolve to move forward from the beginnings we have made. Let us continue to bring
down the walls of hostility which have divided the world for too long, and to build in their place bridges of understanding-so
that despite profound differences between systems of government, the people of the world can be friends.

Let us build a structure of peace in the world in which the weak are as safe as the strong-in which each respects the right
of the other to live by a different system-in which those who would influence others will do so by the strength of their ideas,
and not by the force of their arms.

Let us accept that high responsibility not as a burden, but gladly-gladly because the chance to build such a peace is the
noblest endeavor in which a nation can engage; gladly, also, because only if we act greatly in meeting our responsibilities
abroad will we remain a great Nation, and only if we remain a great Nation will we act greatly in meeting our challenges at
home.

We have the chance today to do more than ever before in our history to make life better in America-to ensure better education,
better health, better housing, better transportation, a cleaner environment-to restore respect for law, to make our communities
more livable-and to insure the God-given right of every American to full and equal opportunity.

Because the range of our needs is so great-because the reach of our opportunities is so great-let us be bold in our determination
to meet those needs in new ways.

Just as building a structure of peace abroad has required turning away from old policies that failed, so building a new era
of progress at home requires turning away from old policies that have failed.

Abroad, the shift from old policies to new has not been a retreat from our responsibilities, but a better way to peace.

And at home, the shift from old policies to new will not be a retreat from our responsibilities, but a better way to progress.

Abroad and at home, the key to those new responsibilities lies in the placing and the division of responsibility. We have
lived too long with the consequences of attempting to gather all power and responsibility in Washington.

Abroad and at home, the time has come to turn away from the condescending policies of paternalism-of "Washington knows best."

A person can be expected to act responsibly only if he has responsibility. This is human nature. So let us encourage individuals
at home and nations abroad to do more for themselves, to decide more for themselves. Let us locate responsibility in more
places. Let us measure what we will do for others by what they will do for themselves.

That is why today I offer no promise of a purely governmental solution for every problem. We have lived too long with that
false promise. In trusting too much in government, we have asked of it more than it can deliver. This leads only to inflated
expectations, to reduced individual effort, and to a disappointment and frustration that erode confidence both in what government
can do and in what people can do.

Government must learn to take less from people so that people can do more for themselves.

Let us remember that America was built not by government, but by people-not by welfare, but by work-not by shirking responsibility,
but by seeking responsibility.

In our own lives, let each of us ask-not just what will government do for me, but what can I do for myself?

In the challenges we face together, let each of us ask-not just how can government help, but how can I help?

Your National Government has a great and vital role to play. And I pledge to you that where this Government should act, we
will act boldly and we will lead boldly. But just as important is the role that each and every one of us must play, as an
individual and as a member of his own community.

From this day forward, let each of us make a solemn commitment in his own heart: to bear his responsibility, to do his part,
to live his ideals-so that together, we can see the dawn of a new age of progress for America, and together, as we celebrate
our 200th anniversary as a nation, we can do so proud in the fulfillment of our promise to ourselves and to the world.

As America's longest and most difficult war comes to an end, let us again learn to debate our differences with civility and
decency. And let each of us reach out for that one precious quality government cannot provide-a new level of respect for the
rights and feelings of one another, a new level of respect for the individual human dignity which is the cherished birthright
of every American.

Above all else, the time has come for us to renew our faith in ourselves and in America.

In recent years, that faith has been challenged.

Our children have been taught to be ashamed of their country, ashamed of their parents, ashamed of America's record at home
and of its role in the world.

At every turn, we have been beset by those who find everything wrong with America and little that is right. But I am confident
that this will not be the judgment of history on these remarkable times in which we are privileged to live.

America's record in this century has been unparalleled in the world's history for its responsibility, for its generosity,
for its creativity, and for its progress.

Let us be proud that our system has produced and provided more freedom and more abundance, more widely shared, than any other
system in the history of the world.

Let us be proud that in each of the four wars in which we have been engaged in this century, including the one we are now
bringing to an end, we have fought not for our selfish advantage, but to help others resist aggression.

Let us be proud that by our bold, new initiatives, and by our steadfastness for peace with honor, we have made a break-through
toward creating in the world what the world has not known before-a structure of peace that can last, not merely for our time,
but for generations to come.

We are embarking here today on an era that presents challenges great as those any nation, or any generation, has ever faced.

We shall answer to God, to history, and to our conscience for the way in which we use these years.

As I stand in this place, so hallowed by history, I think of others who have stood here before me. I think of the dreams they
had for America, and I think of how each recognized that he needed help far beyond himself in order to make those dreams come
true.

Today, I ask your prayers that in the years ahead I may have God's help in making decisions that are right for America, and
I pray for your help so that together we may be worthy of our challenge.

Let us pledge together to make these next four years the best four years in America's history, so that on its 200th birthday
America will be as young and as vital as when it began, and as bright a beacon of hope for all the world.

Let us go forward from here confident in hope, strong in our faith in one another, sustained by our faith in God who created
us, and striving always to serve His purpose.

The McKinley Tariff of 1890 was the highest in the nation's history. Yet, eleven years later, while serving his second term
as President, McKinley revised his views, and the last speech he made before his assassination was on tariff reform. His attitude
reflected a significant shift in the thinking of businessmen during the last decade of the nineteenth century. By 1900 high
protective tariffs were no longer the watchword of every Republican politician. McKinley's speech, part of which appears here,
was delivered in Buffalo, New York, on September 5, 1901, the day before he was shot.

Trade statistics indicate that this country is in a state of unexampled prosperity. The figures are almost appalling. They
show that we are utilizing our fields and forests and mines, and that we are furnishing profitable employment to the millions
of workingmen throughout the United States, bringing comfort and happiness to their homes and making it possible to lay by
savings for old age and disability. That all the people are participating in this great prosperity is seen in every American
community and shown by the enormous and unprecedented deposits in our savings banks. Our duty is the care and security of
these deposits, and their safe investment demands the highest integrity and the best business capacity of those in charge
of these depositories of the people's earnings.

We have a vast and intricate business, built up through years of toil and struggle, in which every part of the country has
its stake, and will not permit of either neglect or of undue selfishness. No narrow, sordid policy will subserve it. The greatest
skill and wisdom on the part of the manufacturers and producers will be required to hold and increase it. Our industrial enterprises,
which have grown to such great proportions, affect the homes and occupations of the people and the welfare of the country.

Our capacity to produce has developed so enormously and our products have so multiplied that the problem of more markets requires
our urgent and immediate attention. Only a broad and enlightened policy will keep what we have. No other policy will get more.
In these times of marvelous business energy and gain, we ought to be looking to the future, strengthening the weak places
in our industrial and commercial system, that we may be ready for any storm or strain.

By sensible trade arrangements which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our increasing
surplus. A system which provides a mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth
of our export trade. We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing.
If such a thing were possible, it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. We should take from our customers
such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor.

Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established.
What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad. The excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet,
and we should sell everywhere we can and buy wherever the buying will enlarge our sales and productions, and thereby make
a greater demand for home labor.

The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are
unprofitable. A policy of goodwill and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony
with the spirit of the times; measures of retaliation are not. If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue
or to encourage and protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?

Then, too, we have inadequate steamship service. New lines of steamers have already been put in commission between the Pacific
Coast ports of the United States and those on the western coasts of Mexico and Central and South America. These should be
followed up with direct steamship lines between the Eastern coast of the United States and South American ports. One of the
needs of the times is to direct commercial lines from our vast fields of production to the fields of consumption that we have
but barely touched.

Next in advantage to having the thing to sell is to have the convenience to carry it to the buyer. We must encourage our Merchant
Marine. We must have more ships. They must be under the American flag, built and manned and owned by Americans. These will
not only be profitable in a commercial sense; they will be messengers of peace and amity wherever they go. We must build the
Isthmian canal, which will unite the two oceans and give a straight line of water communication with the western coasts of
Central and South America and Mexico. The construction of a Pacific cable cannot be longer postponed.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 10, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 393-397.

Abraham Lincoln: The Dred Scott Decision and the Declaration of Independence

The Dred Scott decision of March 1857 dealt a severe blow to Republican efforts to prevent the expansion of slavery. As the leading Republican in
Illinois, Abraham Lincoln felt bound to oppose Democrats who upheld the court's decision. Lincoln took his stand in the following speech delivered
at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857, a full year before his campaign against Stephen A. Douglas for the U.S. Senate. Douglas
would win that election, which became a referendum on slavery.

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions: first, that a Negro cannot sue in the United
States courts; and, second, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories. It was made by a divided Court, dividing
differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect I shall
follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis than he could on Taney.

He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who
has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free and resisted the authority of his master over him?

Judicial decisions have two uses: first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and, second, to indicate to the public
how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities."

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial department of government.
We think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided
but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that
instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the Court
that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this. We offer no resistance
to it.

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. That this should be so accords
both with common sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias,
and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and
had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it has been
before the Court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps
would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent.

But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious,
it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. But Judge
Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him:

The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound,
and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our
whole republican system of government--a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy
of passion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution,
shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies
of the Constitution--the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws.

Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United
States, disregarded the decision and vetoed a bill for a recharter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public
functionary must support the Constitution "as he understands it." But hear the general's own words. Here they are, taken from
his veto message:

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled
by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source
of authority and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the
people and the states can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against
the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against
it. One Congress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress,
therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the states, the expressions of legislative, judicial,
and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent,
therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the
points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further:

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities
of this government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the
Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands
it and not as it is understood by others.

Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It
would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting
Supreme Court decisions fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon
an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct issue between the friends
and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really
true, and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two
which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great
length that Negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution
of the United States.

On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states--to wit, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina--free Negroes were voters and in proportion to their numbers had the
same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt
of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point holds the following language:

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States through the action, in each state, of those
persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the state. In some
of the states, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons
were not only included in the body of "the people of the United States" by whom the Constitution was ordained and established,
but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question
of its adoption.

Again, Chief Justice Taney says:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in
the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution
of the United States was framed and adopted.

And, again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says:

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument
at this day would be so understood.

In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert but plainly assumes as a fact that the public estimate of the black man
is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars
the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly
the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the
five states--New Jersey and North Carolina--that then gave the free Negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken
away, and in a third--New York--it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single
additional state, though the number of the states has more than doubled.

In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but, since then, such legal
restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days, legislatures held the unquestioned
power to abolish slavery in their respective states, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for state constitutions to withhold
that power from the legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries
was prohibited, but now Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it
could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all and thought to include all; but
now, to aid in making the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked
at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it.

All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and
the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person and left
no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as
it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key--the keys
in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing
as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more
complete than it is.

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the Negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin
of the government.

Three years and a half ago Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He
scorned all opposition and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a presidential nomination
by one endorsing the general doctrine of his measure but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation
and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival constitutionally elected, not by the strength
of friends but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly 400,000 votes. He has seen his chief
aids in his own state, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed for an offense
not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case standing next on the docket for trial.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white
and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the
benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries,
he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes
an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition of the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the
Declaration of Independence includes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes Negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely
that all who contend it does do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with Negroes! He will have
it that they cannot be consistent else.

Now I protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave, I must
necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly
is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of anyone else,
she is my equal and the equal of all others.

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to
include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include
Negroes by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument
comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people
on an equality with one another. And this is the staple argument of both the chief justice and the senator for doing this
obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration.

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined
with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal with "certain inalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert
the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately
upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that enforcement of
it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all and revered by all; constantly looked
to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading
and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion
that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed
in the Declaration not for that but for future use. Its authors meant it to be--as, thank God, it is now proving itself--a
stumbling block to all those who in aftertimes might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land and commence
their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares
that "all men are created equal."

Now let us hear Judge Douglas' view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence except upon the
hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created
equal; that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in
Great Britain; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized
world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country.

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck--mangled ruin--it
makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!"
Why, according to this, not only Negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that
instrument. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included, to be sure, but the French, Germans,
and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races!

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that
we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that, having
kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it
merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance
from the British Crown and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some
eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now: mere rubbish, old wadding left to rot on the battlefield after
the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" tomorrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference
to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you
will celebrate and will even go as far as to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way,
you read it once more with Judge Douglas' version. It will then run thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all
British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago were created equal to all British subjects born and then
residing in Great Britain."

And now I appeal to all--to Democrats as well as others--are you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered
away--thus left no more, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past--thus shorn of its vitality and practical
value and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing of blood by the white and black races. Agreed for once;
a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black
women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the judge, and when he shall show that his policy is
better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours, we shall drop ours and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the
United States 405,751 mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from
black slaves and white masters.

A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation; but, as an immediate separation is impossible, the
next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in
Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into
the free states, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850
there were in the free states 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there; they came from the slave states,
ready made up. In the same year the slave states had 348,874 mulattoes, all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes
to free blacks--the only colored classes in the free states--is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy
of note, too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest equal to the white have proportionably
the fewest mulattoes, the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the state which goes farthest toward equality between the
races, there are just 184 mulattoes, while there are in Virginia--how many do you think?--79,775, being 23,126 more than in
all the free states together.

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation, and next to it, not the elevation, but the degradation
of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition
of the Negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving
Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife, and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the Court to have held that they
were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they
were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with
that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent.
But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were
free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite
of themselves: the very state of case that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes--all the mixing of blood in the nation.

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his
family, or any more than a percentage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold
over their female slaves.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the
members of the Republican Party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing
in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it and that the chief
plank in their platform--opposition to the spread of slavery--is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing
anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard civilization incidentally. The enterprise
is a difficult one; but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs
from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same
time favorable to, or at least not against, our interest to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a
way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include 400,000 fighting men, went
out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming
a will--a public sentiment--for colonization is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can,
that the Negro is a man, that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged.
The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all
sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing
so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of self-government."

The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to
Liberia, and pay his passage, while they can send him to a new country--Kansas, for instance--and sell him for $1,500, and
the rise.

At no time during the Revolution was there unity of public mind or purpose in America. Even many of those who generally accepted
independence were reluctant to give wholehearted support with taxes or military service. General Washington's unequivocal
devotion to the American cause made him unwilling, perhaps unable, to accept anything less from the public. He could not help
censuring the men whose sense of duty did not equal his own and whose private interest normally came before the common cause.
In the following letter of December 30, 1778, to Benjamin Harrison, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, Washington
expressed himself in no uncertain terms.

I have seen nothing since I came here to change my opinion . . . but abundant reason to be convinced that our affairs are
in a more distressed, ruinous, and deplorable condition than they have been in since the commencement of the war. By a faithful
laborer then in the cause; by a man who is daily injuring his private estate without even the smallest earthly advantage not
common to all in case of a favorable issue to the dispute; by one who wishes the prosperity of America most devoutly and sees
or thinks he sees it on the brink of ruin, you are beseeched, most earnestly, my dear Colonel Harrison, to exert yourself
in endeavoring to rescue your country by (let me add) sending your ablest and best men to Congress. These characters must
not slumber nor sleep at home in such times of pressing danger; they must not content themselves in the enjoyment of places
of honor or profit in their own country while the common interests of America are moldering and sinking into irretrievable
(if a remedy is not soon applied) ruin, in which theirs also must ultimately be involved.

If I was to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and of men from what I have seen, heard, and in part know, I should
in one word say that idleness, dissipation, and extravagance seems to have laid fast hold of most of them; that speculation,
peculation, and an insatiable thirst for riches seems to have got the better of every other consideration and almost of every
order of men; that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day, while the momentous concerns of
an empire--a great and accumulated debt, ruined finances, depreciated money, and want of credit (which in their consequences
is the want of everything)--are but secondary considerations and postponed from day to day, from week to week, as if our affairs
wear the most promising aspect. After drawing this picture, which from my soul I believe to be a true one, I need not repeat
to you that I am alarmed and wish to see my countrymen roused.

I have no resentments, nor do I mean to point at any particular characters; this I can declare upon my honor, for I have every
attention paid me by Congress than I can possibly expect and have reason to think that I stand well in their estimation. But
in the present situation of things I cannot help asking--Where is Mason, Wythe, Jefferson, Nicholas, Pendleton, Nelson, and
another I could name? And why, if you are sufficiently impressed with your danger, do you not (as New York has done in the
case of Mr. Jay) send an extra member or two for at least a certain limited time till the great business of the nation is
put upon a more respectable and happy establishment?

Your money is now sinking 5 percent a day in this city; and I shall not be surprised if in the course of a few months a total
stop is put to the currency of it. And yet an assembly, a concert, a dinner or supper (that will cost £300 or £400) will not
only take men off from acting in, but even from thinking of, this business, while a great part of the officers of your Army,
from absolute necessity, are quitting the service; and the more virtuous few, rather than do this, are sinking by sure degrees
into beggary and want.

I again repeat to you that this is not an exaggerated account. That it is an alarming one I do not deny, and confess to you
that I feel more real distress on account of the present appearances of things than I have done at any one time since the
commencement of the dispute. But it is time to bid you once more adieu. Providence has heretofore taken us up when all other
means and hope seemed to be departing from us.

Many of the "pet banks" in which federal funds had been deposited defaulted during the Panic of 1837. As a consequence of
the bank failures and the inability to raise public funds in an economy beset by a servere depression, it appeared that the
current expenses of the federal government could not be covered. To deal with this situation, Martin Van Buren, the newly
elected President, called a special session of Congress that assembled in Washington on September 4, 1837. To solve the fiscal
problems of the government, Van Buren proposed a further extension of the hard-money policy and backed an independent treasury.
The proposal, which in effect meant that the government would handle its own funds and require payment in legal tender, was
the final step in the divorce of bank and state that Jackson had initiated. The business community, which had been hoping
for a revival of the National Bank, smoldered in silence. A portion of Van Buren's message is reprinted below.

Two nations, the most commercial in the world, enjoying but recently the highest degree of apparent prosperity and maintaining
with each other the closest relations, are suddenly, in a time of profound peace and without any great national disaster,
arrested in their career and plunged into a state of embarrassment and distress. In both countries we have witnessed the same
redundancy of paper money and other facilities of credit; the same spirit of speculation; the same partial successes; the
same difficulties and reverses; and, at length, nearly the same overwhelming catastrophe. The most material difference between
the results in the two countries has only been that with us there has also occurred an extensive derangement in the fiscal
affairs of the federal and state governments, occasioned by the suspension of specie payments by the banks.

The history of these causes and effects in Great Britain and the United States is substantially the history of the revulsion
in all other commercial countries.

The present and visible effects of these circumstances on the operations of the government and on the industry of the people
point out the objects which call for your immediate attention.

They are: to regulate by law the safekeeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public moneys; to designate the funds to be
received and paid by the government; to enable the Treasury to meet promptly every demand upon it; to prescribe the terms
of indulgence and the mode of settlement to be adopted, as well in collecting from individuals the revenue that has accrued
as in withdrawing it from former depositories; and to devise and adopt such further measures, within the constitutional competency
of Congress, as will be best calculated to revive the enterprise and to promote the prosperity of the country. . . .

The plan proposed will be adequate to all our fiscal operations during the remainder of the year. Should it be adopted, the
Treasury, aided by the ample resources of the country, will be able to discharge punctually every pecuniary obligation. For
the future all that is needed will be that caution and forbearance in appropriations which the diminution of the revenue requires
and which the complete accomplishment or great forwardness of many expensive national undertakings renders equally consistent
with prudence and patriotic liberality.

The preceding suggestions and recommendations are submitted in the belief that their adoption by Congress will enable the
Executive Department to conduct our fiscal concerns with success so far as their management has been committed to it. While
the objects and the means proposed to attain them are within its constitutional powers and appropriate duties, they will,
at the same time, it is hoped, by their necessary operation, afford essential aid in the transaction of individual concerns,
and thus yield relief to the people at large in a form adapted to the nature of our government. Those who look to the action
of this government for specific aid to the citizen to relieve embarrassments arising from losses by revulsions in commerce
and credit lose sight of the ends for which it was created and the powers with which it is clothed.

It was established to give security to us all in our lawful and honorable pursuits, under the lasting safeguard of republican
institutions. It was not intended to confer special favors on individuals or on any classes of them, to create systems of
agriculture, manufactures, or trade, or to engage in them either separately or in connection with individual citizens or organized
associations. If its operations were to be directed for the benefit of any one class, equivalent favors must in justice be
extended to the rest; and the attempt to bestow such favors with an equal hand, or even to select those who should most deserve
them, would never be successful.

All communities are apt to look to government for too much. Even in our own country, where its powers and duties are so strictly
limited, we are prone to do so, especially at periods of sudden embarrassment and distress. But this ought not to be. The
framers of our excellent Constitution and the people who approved it with calm and sagacious deliberation acted at the time
on a sounder principle. They wisely judged that the less government interferes with private pursuits the better for the general
prosperity. It is not its legitimate object to make men rich or to repair by direct grants of money or legislation in favor
of particular pursuits, losses not incurred in the public service. This would be substantially to use the property of some
for the benefit of others. But its real duty -- that duty the performance of which makes a good government the most precious
of human blessings -- is to enact and enforce a system of general laws commensurate with, but not exceeding, the objects of
its establishment, and to leave every citizen and every interest to reap under its benign protection the rewards of virtue,
industry, and prudence.

I cannot doubt that on this as on all similar occasions the federal government will find its agency most conducive to the
security and happiness of the people when limited to the exercise of its conceded powers. In never assuming, even for a well-meant
object, such powers as were not designed to be conferred upon it, we shall in reality do most for the general welfare. To
avoid every unnecessary interference with the pursuits of the citizen will result in more benefit than to adopt measures which
could only assist limited interests, and are eagerly, but perhaps naturally, sought for under the pressure of temporary circumstances.
If, therefore, I refrain from suggesting to Congress any specific plan for regulating the exchanges of the country, relieving
mercantile embarrassments, or interfering with the ordinary operations of foreign or domestic commerce, it is from a conviction
that such measures are not within the constitutional province of the general government, and that their adoption would not
promote the real and permanent welfare of those they might be designed to aid.

The difficulties and distresses of the times, though unquestionably great, are limited in their extent, and cannot be regarded
as affecting the permanent prosperity of the nation. Arising in a great degree from the transactions of foreign and domestic
commerce, it is upon them that they have chiefly fallen. The great agricultural interest has in many parts of the country
suffered comparatively little, and, as if Providence intended to display the munificence of its goodness at the moment of
our greatest need, and in direct contrast to the evils occasioned by the waywardness of man, we have been blessed throughout
our extended territory with a season of general health and of uncommon fruitfulness.

The proceeds of our great staples will soon furnish the means of liquidating debts at home and abroad, and contribute equally
to the revival of commercial activity and the restoration of commercial credit. The banks, established avowedly for its support,
deriving their profits from it, and resting under obligations to it which cannot be overlooked, will feel at once the necessity
and justice of uniting their energies with those of the mercantile interest.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 3, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 324-346.

Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office
of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as
a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what
I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge
of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable
in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the
latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the
lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict
examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their
part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed
to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here
either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered.
But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted
by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my
countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray.
However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand
the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the
people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected
me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me
by my country.

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people-a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake,
change, or modify it-it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is
its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures
so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty
acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been
considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by
their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal
to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government
by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that
all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed. The
Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the
Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld.
The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they do not think
proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other
words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has
never surrendered. Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable. The
boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat
of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith-which no one understood
and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all-or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with
or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen.
Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's
observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by
the Constitution itself. These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts
and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation
in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from
no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the
rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Notwithstanding the limited
sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have
adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war,
and hitherto justice has been administered, and intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty
secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner
in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was
intended to grant.

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and
not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws
necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect
that most of the instances of alleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the
sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism
have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces
upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances
of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic
motive. But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not
granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as
are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of
the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments
of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came
from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of
the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned
to the executive branch. There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative
democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual,
predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become
me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures
and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take
this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency
if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate
exercise of the power placed in my hands.

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained
of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution;
others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility
of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this
error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction.
As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and
perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages
who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues
to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than
to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the lover of
power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing
is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting,
nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this
corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying
worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the
part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her
foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent
his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the
Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore
given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance
of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as
it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would
be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since,
although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there
may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the
obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers"
which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion
of these is not included in the whole.

It may be said, indeed, that the Constitution has given to the Executive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body
by refusing to them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that instrument to the judiciary, and yet
the judiciary forms no part of the Legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of power: The Executive
can put his negative upon the acts of the Legislature for other cause than that of want of conformity to the Constitution,
whilst the judiciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the decision of the judiciary is final
in such a case, whereas in every instance where the veto of the Executive is applied it may be overcome by a vote of two-thirds
of both Houses of Congress. The negative upon the acts of the legislative by the executive authority, and that in the hands
of one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like some others of a similar character, however, it appears
to be highly expedient, and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was intended by its authors it may be
productive of great good and be found one of the best safeguards to the Union. At the period of the formation of the Constitution
the principle does not appear to have enjoyed much favor in the State governments. It existed but in two, and in one of these
there was a plural executive. If we would search for the motives which operated upon the purely patriotic and enlightened
assembly which framed the Constitution for the adoption of a provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic principle
that the majority should govern, we must reject the idea that they anticipated from it any benefit to the ordinary course
of legislation. They knew too well the high degree of intelligence which existed among the people and the enlightened character
of the State legislatures not to have the fullest confidence that the two bodies elected by them would be worthy representatives
of such constituents, and, of course, that they would require no aid in conceiving and maturing the measures which the circumstances
of the country might require. And it is preposterous to suppose that a thought could for a moment have been entertained that
the President, placed at the capital, in the center of the country, could better understand the wants and wishes of the people
than their own immediate representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with them, often laboring with
them, and bound to them by the triple tie of interest, duty, and affection. To assist or control Congress, then, in its ordinary
legislation could not, I conceive, have been the motive for conferring the veto power on the President. This argument acquires
additional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the first six Presidents-and two of them were members
of the Convention, one presiding over its deliberations and the other bearing a larger share in consummating the labors of
that august body than any other person. But if bills were never returned to Congress by either of the Presidents above referred
to upon the ground of their being inexpedient or not as well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto
was applied upon that of want of conformity to the Constitution or because errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment.

There is another ground for the adoption of the veto principle, which had probably more influence in recommending it to the
Convention than any other. I refer to the security which it gives to the just and equitable action of the Legislature upon
all parts of the Union. It could not but have occurred to the Convention that in a country so extensive, embracing so great
a variety of soil and climate, and consequently of products, and which from the same causes must ever exhibit a great difference
in the amount of the population of its various sections, calling for a great diversity in the employments of the people, that
the legislation of the majority might not always justly regard the rights and interests of the minority, and that acts of
this character might be passed under an express grant by the words of the Constitution, and therefore not within the competency
of the judiciary to declare void; that however enlightened and patriotic they might suppose from past experience the members
of Congress might be, and however largely partaking, in the general, of the liberal feelings of the people, it was impossible
to expect that bodies so constituted should not sometimes be controlled by local interests and sectional feelings. It was
proper, therefore, to provide some umpire from whose situation and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from
such influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by the executive department constituted by the Constitution. A
person elected to that high office, having his constituents in every section, State, and subdivision of the Union, must consider
himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or
small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I consider the veto power, therefore, given by the Constitution to the
Executive of the United States solely as a conservative power, to be used only first, to protect the Constitution from violation;
secondly, the people from the effects of hasty legislation where their will has been probably disregarded or not well understood,
and, thirdly, to prevent the effects of combinations violative of the rights of minorities. In reference to the second of
these objects I may observe that I consider it the right and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the Constitution
arising from the general grant of power to Congress to carry into effect the powers expressly given; and I believe with Mr.
Madison that "repeated recognitions under varied circumstances in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of the Government, accompanied by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will of the nation," as
affording to the President sufficient authority for his considering such disputed points as settled.

Upward of half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the present form of government. It would be an object more highly
desirable than the gratification of the curiosity of speculative statesmen if its precise situation could be ascertained,
a fair exhibit made of the operations of each of its departments, of the powers which they respectively claim and exercise,
of the collisions which have occurred between them or between the whole Government and those of the States or either of them.
We could then compare our actual condition after fifty years' trial of our system with what it was in the commencement of
its operations and ascertain whether the predictions of the patriots who opposed its adoption or the confident hopes of its
advocates have been best realized. The great dread of the former seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States
would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow
only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended and on the preservation of which they relied as
the last hope of liberty. Without denying that the result to which they looked with so much apprehension is in the way of
being realized, it is obvious that they did not clearly see the mode of its accomplishment. The General Government has seized
upon none of the reserved rights of the States. As far as any open warfare may have gone, the State authorities have amply
maintained their rights. To a casual observer our system presents no appearance of discord between the different members which
compose it. Even the addition of many new ones has produced no jarring. They move in their respective orbits in perfect harmony
with the central head and with each other. But there is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked,
the worst apprehensions of our antifederal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed
by the great increase of power in the executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government,
if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed. This state of things has been in part effected by causes inherent
in the Constitution and in part by the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself. By making the President
the sole distributer of all the patronage of the Government the framers of the Constitution do not appear to have anticipated
at how short a period it would become a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the State governments. Of
trifling importance at first, it had early in Mr. Jefferson's Administration become so powerful as to create great alarm in
the mind of that patriot from the potent influence it might exert in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise. If
such could have then been the effects of its influence, how much greater must be the danger at this time, quadrupled in amount
as it certainly is and more completely under the control of the Executive will than their construction of their powers allowed
or the forbearing characters of all the early Presidents permitted them to make. But it is not by the extent of its patronage
alone that the executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power
to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country. The Constitution has declared it to be the duty of the President
to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navy of the United States. If
the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government which in modern Europe is termed monarchy in
contradistinction to despotism is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp
a monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances; and to me it appears strange indeed that
anyone should doubt that the entire control which the President possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public
money, by the power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure
also to his disposal. The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the
officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword. By a selection of political instruments
for the care of the public money a reference to their commissions by a President would be quite as effectual an argument as
that of Caesar to the Roman knight. I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in drawing a proper plan for the
safe-keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great abilities
and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the Treasury from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which
is complained of, but the unhallowed union of the Treasury with the executive department, which has created such extensive
alarm. To this danger to our republican institutions and that created by the influence given to the Executive through the
instrumentality of the Federal officers I propose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was certainly a
great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely
independent of the Executive. He should at least have been removable only upon the demand of the popular branch of the Legislature.
I have determined never to remove a Secretary of the Treasury without communicating all the circumstances attending such removal
to both Houses of Congress.

The influence of the Executive in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise through the medium of the public officers
can be effectually checked by renewing the prohibition published by Mr. Jefferson forbidding their interference in elections
further than giving their own votes, and their own independence secured by an assurance of perfect immunity in exercising
this sacred privilege of freemen under the dictates of their own unbiased judgments. Never with my consent shall an officer
of the people, compensated for his services out of their pockets, become the pliant instrument of Executive will.

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed
purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom
of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left
us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or
by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of
the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts
of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation
of Congress-that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing
him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never
be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden
one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that
an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions
have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular
incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one. No matter in which of the houses of Parliament
a bill may originate nor by whom introduced-a minister or a member of the opposition-by the fiction of law, or rather of constitutional
principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their
advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed
by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body)
the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to
revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the
House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws,
suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue
should be left where the Constitution has placed it-with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons
the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of
the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended,
appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of
the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation
of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession
of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much
deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury,
it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness
of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and neck toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government
of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family
are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political
rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many
important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of
such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp-that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within.
Are there any of their countrymen, who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially
necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone
not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our constitutions are founded? We are told
by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men
in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed of their
subjects in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District
of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when
the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character.
If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence,
they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the subjects-in other words,
the slaves-of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true-and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea
of his own rights as an American citizen-the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be
interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress
the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by
the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants
and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities
of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty in some cases, as the powers which they respectively
claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may
be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for
no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective
bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual.
Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions
of policy. The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this
seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement
which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members. To insure the continuance
of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were
made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic
government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By a process attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense
but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole. The lines, too,
separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to
leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character
confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time
act as the citizen of two separate States, and he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved
powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States
his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety.
It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble
the recommendations of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet. It was, indeed, to the ambition of
the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy,
and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic
Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of
any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances
of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or
permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their
union produced, with the independence and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected
the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise
of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions
of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war,
and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles
governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the
allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual
members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts
of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject
not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of
no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced.
Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union-cordial, confiding, fraternal union-is by far the
most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

In consequence of the embarrassed state of business and the currency, some of the States may meet with difficulty in their
financial concerns. However deeply we may regret anything imprudent or excessive in the engagements into which States have
entered for purposes of their own, it does not become us to disparage the States governments, nor to discourage them from
making proper efforts for their own relief. On the contrary, it is our duty to encourage them to the extent of our constitutional
authority to apply their best means and cheerfully to make all necessary sacrifices and submit to all necessary burdens to
fulfill their engagements and maintain their credit, for the character and credit of the several States form a part of the
character and credit of the whole country. The resources of the country are abundant, the enterprise and activity of our people
proverbial, and we may well hope that wise legislation and prudent administration by the respective governments, each acting
within its own sphere, will restore former prosperity.

Unpleasant and even dangerous as collisions may sometimes be between the constituted authorities of the citizens of our country
in relation to the lines which separate their respective jurisdictions, the results can be of no vital injury to our institutions
if that ardent patriotism, that devoted attachment to liberty, that spirit of moderation and forbearance for which our countrymen
were once distinguished, continue to be cherished. If this continues to be the ruling passion of our souls, the weaker feeling
of the mistaken enthusiast will be corrected, the Utopian dreams of the scheming politician dissipated, and the complicated
intrigues of the demagogue rendered harmless. The spirit of liberty is the sovereign balm for every injury which our institutions
may receive. On the contrary, no care that can be used in the construction of our Government, no division of powers, no distribution
of checks in its several departments, will prove effectual to keep us a free people if this spirit is suffered to decay; and
decay it will without constant nurture. To the neglect of this duty the best historians agree in attributing the ruin of all
the republics with whose existence and fall their writings have made us acquainted. The same causes will ever produce the
same effects, and as long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understandings
of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices, so long will the liberties
of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. The danger to all well-established free governments
arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its existence or from the influence of designing men diverting their
attention from the quarter whence it approaches to a source from which it can never come. This is the old trick of those who
would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence
of wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became the master of
the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy
of the latter; Cromwell, in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and
Bolívar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator. There is, on the contrary, no instance
on record of an extensive and well-established republic being changed into an aristocracy. The tendencies of all such governments
in their decline is to monarchy, and the antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction-a spirit which assumes
the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like
the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and
most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to
whom they have intrusted power. And although there is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit,
a calm and dispassionate investigation will detect the counterfeit, as well by the character of its operations as the results
that are produced. The true spirit of liberty, although devoted, persevering, bold, and uncompromising in principle, that
secured is mild and tolerant and scrupulous as to the means it employs, whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of
liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the
aid of its cause. When the genuine spirit of liberty animates the body of a people to a thorough examination of their affairs,
it leads to the excision of every excrescence which may have fastened itself upon any of the departments of the government,
and restores the system to its pristine health and beauty. But the reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people
seldom fails to result in a dangerous accession to the executive power introduced and established amidst unusual professions
of devotion to democracy.

The foregoing remarks relate almost exclusively to matters connected with our domestic concerns. It may be proper, however,
that I should give some indications to my fellow-citizens of my proposed course of conduct in the management of our foreign
relations. I assure them, therefore, that it is my intention to use every means in my power to preserve the friendly intercourse
which now so happily subsists with every foreign nation, and that although, of course, not well informed as to the state of
pending negotiations with any of them, I see in the personal characters of the sovereigns, as well as in the mutual interests
of our own and of the governments with which our relations are most intimate, a pleasing guaranty that the harmony so important
to the interests of their subjects as well as of our citizens will not be interrupted by the advancement of any claim or pretension
upon their part to which our honor would not permit us to yield. Long the defender of my country's rights in the field, I
trust that my fellow-citizens will not see in my earnest desire to preserve peace with foreign powers any indication that
their rights will ever be sacrificed or the honor of the nation tarnished by any admission on the part of their Chief Magistrate
unworthy of their former glory. In our intercourse with our aboriginal neighbors the same liberality and justice which marked
the course prescribed to me by two of my illustrious predecessors when acting under their direction in the discharge of the
duties of superintendent and commissioner shall be strictly observed. I can conceive of no more sublime spectacle, none more
likely to propitiate an impartial and common Creator, than a rigid adherence to the principles of justice on the part of a
powerful nation in its transactions with a weaker and uncivilized people whom circumstances have placed at its disposal.

Before concluding, fellow-citizens, I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our
country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which
those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue
which are appalling to be thought of.

If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within
the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the
parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where
the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the
continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one
of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that "in the Roman senate Octavius had a party
and Anthony a party, but the Commonwealth had none." Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of
the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and
the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates
or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of
the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger
dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of
Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our
forums. A calamity so awful, not only to our country, but to the world, must be deprecated by every patriot and every tendency
to a state of things likely to produce it immediately checked. Such a tendency has existed-does exist. Always the friend of
my countrymen, never their flatterer, it becomes my duty to say to them from this high place to which their partiality has
exalted me that there exists in the land a spirit hostile to their best interests-hostile to liberty itself. It is a spirit
contracted in its views, selfish in its objects. It looks to the aggrandizement of a few even to the destruction of the interests
of the whole. The entire remedy is with the people. Something, however, may be effected by the means which they have placed
in my hands. It is union that we want, not of a party for the sake of that party, but a union of the whole country for the
sake of the whole country, for the defense of its interests and its honor against foreign aggression, for the defense of those
principles for which our ancestors so gloriously contended. As far as it depends upon me it shall be accomplished. All the
influence that I possess shall be exerted to prevent the formation at least of an Executive party in the halls of the legislative
body. I wish for the support of no member of that body to any measure of mine that does not satisfy his judgment and his sense
of duty to those from whom he holds his appointment, nor any confidence in advance from the people but that asked for by Mr.
Jefferson, "to give firmness and effect to the legal administration of their affairs."

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound
reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious
responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by
the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved
to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest
of our beloved country in all future time.

Fellow-citizens, being fully invested with that high office to which the partiality of my countrymen has called me, I now
take an affectionate leave of you. You will bear with you to your homes the remembrance of the pledge I have this day given
to discharge all the high duties of my exalted station according to the best of my ability, and I shall enter upon their performance
with entire confidence in the support of a just and generous people.

About to add the solemnity of an oath to the obligations imposed by a second call to the station in which my country heretofore
placed me, I find in the presence of this respectable assembly an opportunity of publicly repeating my profound sense of so
distinguished a confidence and of the responsibility united with it. The impressions on me are strengthened by such an evidence
that my faithful endeavors to discharge my arduous duties have been favorably estimated, and by a consideration of the momentous
period at which the trust has been renewed. From the weight and magnitude now belonging to it I should be compelled to shrink
if I had less reliance on the support of an enlightened and generous people, and felt less deeply a conviction that the war
with a powerful nation, which forms so prominent a feature in our situation, is stamped with that justice which invites the
smiles of Heaven on the means of conducting it to a successful termination.

May we not cherish this sentiment without presumption when we reflect on the characters by which this war is distinguished?

It was not declared on the part of the United States until it had been long made on them, in reality though not in name; until
arguments and postulations had been exhausted; until a positive declaration had been received that the wrongs provoking it
would not be discontinued; nor until this last appeal could no longer be delayed without breaking down the spirit of the nation,
destroying all confidence in itself and in its political institutions, and either perpetuating a state of disgraceful suffering
or regaining by more costly sacrifices and more severe struggles our lost rank and respect among independent powers.

On the issue of the war are staked our national sovereignty on the high seas and the security of an important class of citizens,
whose occupations give the proper value to those of every other class. Not to contend for such a stake is to surrender our
equality with other powers on the element common to all and to violate the sacred title which every member of the society
has to its protection. I need not call into view the unlawfulness of the practice by which our mariners are forced at the
will of every cruising officer from their own vessels into foreign ones, nor paint the outrages inseparable from it. The proofs
are in the records of each successive Administration of our Government, and the cruel sufferings of that portion of the American
people have found their way to every bosom not dead to the sympathies of human nature.

As the war was just in its origin and necessary and noble in its objects, we can reflect with a proud satisfaction that in
carrying it on no principle of justice or honor, no usage of civilized nations, no precept of courtesy or humanity, have been
infringed. The war has been waged on our part with scrupulous regard to all these obligations, and in a spirit of liberality
which was never surpassed.

How little has been the effect of this example on the conduct of the enemy!

They have retained as prisoners of war citizens of the United States not liable to be so considered under the usages of war.

They have refused to consider as prisoners of war, and threatened to punish as traitors and deserters, persons emigrating
without restraint to the United States, incorporated by naturalization into our political family, and fighting under the authority
of their adopted country in open and honorable war for the maintenance of its rights and safety. Such is the avowed purpose
of a Government which is in the practice of naturalizing by thousands citizens of other countries, and not only of permitting
but compelling them to fight its battles against their native country.

They have not, it is true, taken into their own hands the hatchet and the knife, devoted to indiscriminate massacre, but they
have let loose the savages armed with these cruel instruments; have allured them into their service, and carried them to battle
by their sides, eager to glut their savage thirst with the blood of the vanquished and to finish the work of torture and death
on maimed and defenseless captives. And, what was never before seen, British commanders have extorted victory over the unconquerable
valor of our troops by presenting to the sympathy of their chief captives awaiting massacre from their savage associates.
And now we find them, in further contempt of the modes of honorable warfare, supplying the place of a conquering force by
attempts to disorganize our political society, to dismember our confederated Republic. Happily, like others, these will recoil
on the authors; but they mark the degenerate counsels from which they emanate, and if they did not belong to a sense of unexampled
inconsistencies might excite the greater wonder as proceeding from a Government which founded the very war in which it has
been so long engaged on a charge against the disorganizing and insurrectional policy of its adversary.

To render the justice of the war on our part the more conspicuous, the reluctance to commence it was followed by the earliest
and strongest manifestations of a disposition to arrest its progress. The sword was scarcely out of the scabbard before the
enemy was apprised of the reasonable terms on which it would be resheathed. Still more precise advances were repeated, and
have been received in a spirit forbidding every reliance not placed on the military resources of the nation.

These resources are amply sufficient to bring the war to an honorable issue. Our nation is in number more than half that of
the British Isles. It is composed of a brave, a free, a virtuous, and an intelligent people. Our country abounds in the necessaries,
the arts, and the comforts of life. A general prosperity is visible in the public countenance. The means employed by the British
cabinet to undermine it have recoiled on themselves; have given to our national faculties a more rapid development, and, draining
or diverting the precious metals from British circulation and British vaults, have poured them into those of the United States.
It is a propitious consideration that an unavoidable war should have found this seasonable facility for the contributions
required to support it. When the public voice called for war, all knew, and still know, that without them it could not be
carried on through the period which it might last, and the patriotism, the good sense, and the manly spirit of our fellow-citizens
are pledges for the cheerfulness with which they will bear each his share of the common burden. To render the war short and
its success sure, animated and systematic exertions alone are necessary, and the success of our arms now may long preserve
our country from the necessity of another resort to them. Already have the gallant exploits of our naval heroes proved to
the world our inherent capacity to maintain our rights on one element. If the reputation of our arms has been thrown under
clouds on the other, presaging flashes of heroic enterprise assure us that nothing is wanting to correspondent triumphs there
also but the discipline and habits which are in daily progress.

The Missouri Compromise, by the terms of which slavery was henceforth excluded from the territories north of latitude 36°30' (the southern boundary of Missouri), alarmed Thomas
Jefferson, as he told John Holmes in this famous letter, “like a firebell in the night.” The vividness of the image was in
keeping with the passions of the time. Despite being a slaveholder himself, Jefferson publicly disapproved of slavery. He
even more strongly disapproved of any action on the part of Congress that, in his view, exceeded its constitutional authority.
Slavery, Jefferson believed, would die a natural death if left alone; but the very life of the Union depended on maintaining
a due measure in legislative acts. In addition, the Missouri Compromise had drawn a line across the country on the basis of
a principle, not of geography; such a line, “held up,” as Jefferson put it, “to the angry passions of men,” could have no
other ultimate effect than the disastrous rending of the body politic. Holmes, a Massachusetts man, was one of the few Northern
congressmen to vote against the Tallmadge Amendment that would have excluded slavery from Missouri itself; Jefferson's prophetic
letter to him was written April 22, 1820, just a month after the passage of the Missouri Compromise.

I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri
question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to
public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am
not distant. But this momentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it
at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence.
A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions
of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth,
that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.

The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if,
in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears,
and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing
I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would
not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate
the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too, from
this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different
descriptions of men composing a state. This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the Constitution
has taken from them and given to the general government. Could Congress, for example, say that the non-freemen of Connecticut
shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state?

I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire
self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and
that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they
will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before
they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the
faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.

On November 4, 2008, Democrat Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, becoming the first African American to win the country"s highest office. Joined by his wife, Michelle, and the couple"s two young daughters, Sasha and Malia, Obama addressed his fans and friends in Chicago"s Grant Park, which
40 years earlier had been the scene of a violent confrontation between city police and demonstrators during the Democratic
National Convention. In front of an estimated 90,000 to 240,000 people who descended upon the park to celebrate his election—a
crowd whose diversity reflected Obama"s appeal across racial, gender, and generational lines—Obama acknowledged the historic
nature of his victory and painted his vision of hope for a country fighting in two wars and facing the worst economic turmoil
since the Great Depression.

Hello, Chicago.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if
the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It"s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people
who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be
different, that their voices could be that difference.

It"s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American,
gay, straight, disabled, and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection
of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It"s the answer that led those who"ve been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we
can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It"s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change
has come to America.

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain fought long and hard in this campaign. And he"s fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He
has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by
this brave and selfless leader.

I congratulate him; I congratulate Gov. Palin for all that they"ve achieved. And I look forward to working with them to renew this nation"s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up
with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock
of our family, the love of my life, the nation"s next first lady, Michelle Obama.

Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine. And you have earned the new puppy that"s coming with us to the
new White House.

And while she"s no longer with us, I know my grandmother"s watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them
tonight. I know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Alma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you"ve given
me. I am grateful to them.

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe, the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the best—the best political campaign,
I think, in the history of the United States of America.

To my chief strategist David Axelrod who"s been a partner with me every step of the way.

To the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what
you"ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn"t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was
not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front
porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10
and $20 to the cause.

It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation"s apathy, who left their homes and their
families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep.

It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on doors of perfect strangers,
and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized and proved that more than two centuries later a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people has not perished from the Earth.

This is your victory.

And I know you didn"t do this just to win an election. And I know you didn"t do it for me.

You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the
challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis
in a century.

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan
to risk their lives for us.

There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after the children fall asleep and wonder how they"ll make the mortgage or
pay their doctors" bills or save enough for their child"s college education.

There"s new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term. But, America,
I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there.

I promise you, we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won"t agree with every decision or policy I make as president.
And we know the government can"t solve every problem.

But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And,
above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it"s been done in America for 221 years—block
by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if
we go back to the way things were.

It can"t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and
look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it"s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let"s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship
and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let"s remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House,
a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure
of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained,
it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need
your help. And I will be your president, too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios
in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership
is at hand.

To those—to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you.
And to all those who have wondered if America"s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength
of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals:
democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

That"s the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we"ve already achieved gives
us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that"s on my mind tonight"s about
a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She"s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard
in this election except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone
like her couldn"t vote for two reasons—because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she"s seen throughout her century in America—the heartache and the hope; the struggle
and the progress; the times we were told that we can"t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women"s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach
for the ballot. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness
and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told
a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination.

And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America,
through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves—if our
children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what
change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.

This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote
the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that
while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can"t, we will respond
with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

We have assembled to repeat the public ceremonial, begun by Washington, observed by all my predecessors, and now a time-honored
custom, which marks the commencement of a new term of the Presidential office. Called to the duties of this great trust, I
proceed, in compliance with usage, to announce some of the leading principles, on the subjects that now chiefly engage the
public attention, by which it is my desire to be guided in the discharge of those duties. I shall not undertake to lay down
irrevocably principles or measures of administration, but rather to speak of the motives which should animate us, and to suggest
certain important ends to be attained in accordance with our institutions and essential to the welfare of our country.

At the outset of the discussions which preceded the recent Presidential election it seemed to me fitting that I should fully
make known my sentiments in regard to several of the important questions which then appeared to demand the consideration of
the country. Following the example, and in part adopting the language, of one of my predecessors, I wish now, when every motive
for misrepresentation has passed away, to repeat what was said before the election, trusting that my countrymen will candidly
weigh and understand it, and that they will feel assured that the sentiments declared in accepting the nomination for the
Presidency will be the standard of my conduct in the path before me, charged, as I now am, with the grave and difficult task
of carrying them out in the practical administration of the Government so far as depends, under the Constitution and laws
on the Chief Executive of the nation.

The permanent pacification of the country upon such principles and by such measures as will secure the complete protection
of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all their constitutional rights is now the one subject in our public affairs
which all thoughtful and patriotic citizens regard as of supreme importance.

Many of the calamitous efforts of the tremendous revolution which has passed over the Southern States still remain. The immeasurable
benefits which will surely follow, sooner or later, the hearty and generous acceptance of the legitimate results of that revolution
have not yet been realized. Difficult and embarrassing questions meet us at the threshold of this subject. The people of those
States are still impoverished, and the inestimable blessing of wise, honest, and peaceful local self-government is not fully
enjoyed. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the cause of this condition of things, the fact is clear that in the
progress of events the time has come when such government is the imperative necessity required by all the varied interests,
public and private, of those States. But it must not be forgotten that only a local government which recognizes and maintains
inviolate the rights of all is a true self-government.

With respect to the two distinct races whose peculiar relations to each other have brought upon us the deplorable complications
and perplexities which exist in those States, it must be a government which guards the interests of both races carefully and
equally. It must be a government which submits loyally and heartily to the Constitution and the laws-the laws of the nation
and the laws of the States themselves-accepting and obeying faithfully the whole Constitution as it is.

Resting upon this sure and substantial foundation, the superstructure of beneficent local governments can be built up, and
not otherwise. In furtherance of such obedience to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and in behalf of all that
its attainment implies, all so-called party interests lose their apparent importance, and party lines may well be permitted
to fade into insignificance. The question we have to consider for the immediate welfare of those States of the Union is the
question of government or no government; of social order and all the peaceful industries and the happiness that belongs to
it, or a return to barbarism. It is a question in which every citizen of the nation is deeply interested, and with respect
to which we ought not to be, in a partisan sense, either Republicans or Democrats, but fellow-citizens and fellowmen, to whom
the interests of a common country and a common humanity are dear.

The sweeping revolution of the entire labor system of a large portion of our country and the advance of 4,000,000 people from
a condition of servitude to that of citizenship, upon an equal footing with their former masters, could not occur without
presenting problems of the gravest moment, to be dealt with by the emancipated race, by their former masters, and by the General
Government, the author of the act of emancipation. That it was a wise, just, and providential act, fraught with good for all
concerned, is not generally conceded throughout the country. That a moral obligation rests upon the National Government to
employ its constitutional power and influence to establish the rights of the people it has emancipated, and to protect them
in the enjoyment of those rights when they are infringed or assailed, is also generally admitted.

The evils which afflict the Southern States can only be removed or remedied by the united and harmonious efforts of both races,
actuated by motives of mutual sympathy and regard; and while in duty bound and fully determined to protect the rights of all
by every constitutional means at the disposal of my Administration, I am sincerely anxious to use every legitimate influence
in favor of honest and efficient local self-government as the true resource of those States for the promotion of the contentment
and prosperity of their citizens. In the effort I shall make to accomplish this purpose I ask the cordial cooperation of all
who cherish an interest in the welfare of the country, trusting that party ties and the prejudice of race will be freely surrendered
in behalf of the great purpose to be accomplished. In the important work of restoring the South it is not the political situation
alone that merits attention. The material development of that section of the country has been arrested by the social and political
revolution through which it has passed, and now needs and deserves the considerate care of the National Government within
the just limits prescribed by the Constitution and wise public economy.

But at the basis of all prosperity, for that as well as for every other part of the country, lies the improvement of the intellectual
and moral condition of the people. Universal suffrage should rest upon universal education. To this end, liberal and permanent
provision should be made for the support of free schools by the State governments, and, if need be, supplemented by legitimate
aid from national authority.

Let me assure my countrymen of the Southern States that it is my earnest desire to regard and promote their truest interest-the
interests of the white and of the colored people both and equally-and to put forth my best efforts in behalf of a civil policy
which will forever wipe out in our political affairs the color line and the distinction between North and South, to the end
that we may have not merely a united North or a united South, but a united country.

I ask the attention of the public to the paramount necessity of reform in our civil service-a reform not merely as to certain
abuses and practices of so-called official patronage which have come to have the sanction of usage in the several Departments
of our Government, but a change in the system of appointment itself; a reform that shall be thorough, radical, and complete;
a return to the principles and practices of the founders of the Government. They neither expected nor desired from public
officers any partisan service. They meant that public officers should owe their whole service to the Government and to the
people. They meant that the officer should be secure in his tenure as long as his personal character remained untarnished
and the performance of his duties satisfactory. They held that appointments to office were not to be made nor expected merely
as rewards for partisan services, nor merely on the nomination of members of Congress, as being entitled in any respect to
the control of such appointments.

The fact that both the great political parties of the country, in declaring their principles prior to the election, gave a
prominent place to the subject of reform of our civil service, recognizing and strongly urging its necessity, in terms almost
identical in their specific import with those I have here employed, must be accepted as a conclusive argument in behalf of
these measures. It must be regarded as the expression of the united voice and will of the whole country upon this subject,
and both political parties are virtually pledged to give it their unreserved support.

The President of the United States of necessity owes his election to office to the suffrage and zealous labors of a political
party, the members of which cherish with ardor and regard as of essential importance the principles of their party organization;
but he should strive to be always mindful of the fact that he serves his party best who serves the country best.

In furtherance of the reform we seek, and in other important respects a change of great importance, I recommend an amendment
to the Constitution prescribing a term of six years for the Presidential office and forbidding a reelection.

With respect to the financial condition of the country, I shall not attempt an extended history of the embarrassment and prostration
which we have suffered during the past three years. The depression in all our varied commercial and manufacturing interests
throughout the country, which began in September, 1873, still continues. It is very gratifying, however, to be able to say
that there are indications all around us of a coming change to prosperous times.

Upon the currency question, intimately connected, as it is, with this topic, I may be permitted to repeat here the statement
made in my letter of acceptance, that in my judgment the feeling of uncertainty inseparable from an irredeemable paper currency,
with its fluctuation of values, is one of the greatest obstacles to a return to prosperous times. The only safe paper currency
is one which rests upon a coin basis and is at all times and promptly convertible into coin.

I adhere to the views heretofore expressed by me in favor of Congressional legislation in behalf of an early resumption of
specie payments, and I am satisfied not only that this is wise, but that the interests, as well as the public sentiment, of
the country imperatively demand it.

Passing from these remarks upon the condition of our own country to consider our relations with other lands, we are reminded
by the international complications abroad, threatening the peace of Europe, that our traditional rule of noninterference in
the affairs of foreign nations has proved of great value in past times and ought to be strictly observed.

The policy inaugurated by my honored predecessor, President Grant, of submitting to arbitration grave questions in dispute
between ourselves and foreign powers points to a new, and incomparably the best, instrumentality for the preservation of peace,
and will, as I believe, become a beneficent example of the course to be pursued in similar emergencies by other nations.

If, unhappily, questions of difference should at any time during the period of my Administration arise between the United
States and any foreign government, it will certainly be my disposition and my hope to aid in their settlement in the same
peaceful and honorable way, thus securing to our country the great blessings of peace and mutual good offices with all the
nations of the world.

Fellow-citizens, we have reached the close of a political contest marked by the excitement which usually attends the contests
between great political parties whose members espouse and advocate with earnest faith their respective creeds. The circumstances
were, perhaps, in no respect extraordinary save in the closeness and the consequent uncertainty of the result.

For the first time in the history of the country it has been deemed best, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case,
that the objections and questions in dispute with reference to the counting of the electoral votes should be referred to the
decision of a tribunal appointed for this purpose.

That tribunal-established by law for this sole purpose; its members, all of them, men of long-established reputation for integrity
and intelligence, and, with the exception of those who are also members of the supreme judiciary, chosen equally from both
political parties; its deliberations enlightened by the research and the arguments of able counsel-was entitled to the fullest
confidence of the American people. Its decisions have been patiently waited for, and accepted as legally conclusive by the
general judgment of the public. For the present, opinion will widely vary as to the wisdom of the several conclusions announced
by that tribunal. This is to be anticipated in every instance where matters of dispute are made the subject of arbitration
under the forms of law. Human judgment is never unerring, and is rarely regarded as otherwise than wrong by the unsuccessful
party in the contest.

The fact that two great political parties have in this way settled a dispute in regard to which good men differ as to the
facts and the law no less than as to the proper course to be pursued in solving the question in controversy is an occasion
for general rejoicing.

Upon one point there is entire unanimity in public sentiment-that conflicting claims to the Presidency must be amicably and
peaceably adjusted, and that when so adjusted the general acquiescence of the nation ought surely to follow.

It has been reserved for a government of the people, where the right of suffrage is universal, to give to the world the first
example in history of a great nation, in the midst of the struggle of opposing parties for power, hushing its party tumults
to yield the issue of the contest to adjustment according to the forms of law.

Looking for the guidance of that Divine Hand by which the destinies of nations and individuals are shaped, I call upon you,
Senators, Representatives, judges, fellow-citizens, here and everywhere, to unite with me in an earnest effort to secure to
our country the blessings, not only of material prosperity, but of justice, peace, and union-a union depending not upon the
constraint of force, but upon the loving devotion of a free people; "and that all things may be so ordered and settled upon
the best and surest foundations that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among
us for all generations."

George W. Bush: Immigration Reform

The United States has long been referred to as a “melting pot” and a “nation of immigrants.” Despite this, immigration has been a contentious
issue in the country's history, from the clamour of concerned citizens such as famed inventor Samuel F.B. Morse sounding the alarm about the dangers of Irish Catholic immigrants in the 1830s, '40s, and '50s to Henry Cabot Lodge, a U.S. senator who warned against unrestricted immigration in 1896. The topic of immigration and the need for reform resurfaces
repeatedly in the United States. Although many laws have been passed, little has been resolved, and in the early 21st century
the topic of immigration continued to be an issue. In 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that upwards of 12 million foreign
nationals were living illegally in the United States. Of these, it was estimated, more than three-fourths were born in South
or Central America, with more than half of this group coming from Mexico. Many rallies—some drawing as many as half a million people—were held around the country in 2006. Demonstrators demanded
recognition for the positive contributions made by illegal immigrants to the United States and urged that they be given a
way to obtain U.S. citizenship and the rights and protections that accompany it; they opposed immigration-policy legislation
that would not support these goals. Many others, however, objected to the relaxing of immigration policies and claimed that
illegal immigrants were causing more harm than good to the U.S. economy. In the midst of this debate, Pres. George W. Bush delivered a national speech (reprinted below) addressing these issues and outlining his proposal to arrive at an immigration
policy to satisfy both sides.

Good evening. I've asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance—the reform of America's
immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions, and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the
streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others
have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting
images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear
where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete
control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions
have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it
difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools
and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems. Yet we must
remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their
faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American
law.

We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition,
which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and
a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system
that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent
requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration,
and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was a governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border,
and how important it is. Since I became President, we've increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded
the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult
circumstances, and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America
illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling
on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll
increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more
than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

At the same time, we're launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will
construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We'll employ motion
sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the
world, and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet
the need to secure our border is urgent. So I'm announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during
this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So, in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard
members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border
Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol
roads, and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities—that duty will be done
by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number
of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans
to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our
border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue
to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and
crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities.
So we'll increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions.
We will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain
illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important part of our border security and they need to
be a part of our strategy to secure our borders.

The steps I've outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must
ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal
immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch
illegal immigrants from other country [sic] it is not as easy to send them home. For many years, the government did not have
enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our
society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called
“catch and release,” is unacceptable, and we will end it.

We're taking several important steps to meet this goal. We've expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and
we will continue to add more. We've expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we're making it clear
to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions,
we've ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding
and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they'll
be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the
other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of
desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our
border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people
trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in
an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers
for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks.
And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their
families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers, and make it less
likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments,
by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by
making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this
country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem
of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work
eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should
use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce
the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work
in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place.

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic
path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would
invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts
to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United
States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship
for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between
an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family,
and an otherwise clean record.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for
breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these
conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line
behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I've just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those
who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The
success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans.
Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability
to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers
to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to
a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams,
they renew our spirit, and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive,
because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. The House has passed
an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month so we can work out the differences between the two bills,
and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue, and
as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger,
or playing on anyone's fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real
lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their
citizenship papers say.

I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better
life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work
and sacrifice. As President, I've had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them.
On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant
Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and
then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery
Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. And when asked if he had any requests, he made two: a promotion for the corporal
who helped rescue him, and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and
swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they've
always been—people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the
great hope on the horizon, an open door to the future, a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come
here, no matter where they come from, because we trust in our country's genius for making us all Americans—one nation under
God.

Thomas Jefferson: On the New Constitution

Thomas Jefferson summarized his judgment of the new Constitution in a letter to Francis Hopkinson of March 13, 1789. "The
great leader" to whom he refers was George Washington. Not until 1951 was an amendment passed, of the sort he wished, limiting
the eligibility of the President to two terms--the precedent established by Washington when he refused to run for a third
term in 1796.

You say that I have been dished up to you as an Anti-Federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough
of notice to merit citing; but, since you ask it, I will tell it to you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted
the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in
anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore, I am not of the party of Federalists.

But I am much farther from that of the Anti-Federalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in
the new Constitution: the consolidation of the government; the organization into executive, legislative, and judiciary; the
subdivision of the legislative; the happy compromise of interests between the great and little states by the different manner
of voting in the different houses; the voting by persons instead of states; the qualified negative on laws given to the executive,
which, however, I should have like better if associated with the judiciary also, as in New York; and the power of taxation.
I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be.

What I disapproved from the first moment, also, was the want of a bill of rights to guard liberty against the legislative
as well as the executive branches of the government; that is to say, to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press,
freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury, in all
cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved, also, the perpetual reeligibility of the President. To these points
of disapprobation I adhere.

My first wish was that the nine first conventions might accept the Constitution as the means of securing to us the great mass
of good it contained, and that the four last might reject it as the means of obtaining amendments. But I was corrected in
this wish the moment I saw the much better plan of Massachusetts, and which had never occurred to me. With the respect to
the declaration of rights, I suppose the majority of the United States are of my opinion; for I apprehend all the Anti-Federalists
and a very respectable proportion of the Federalists think that such a declaration should now be annexed. The enlightened
part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing the instrument of security for the rights of the people and
have been not a little surprised to see us so soon give it up.

With respect to the reeligibility of the President, I find myself differing from the majority of my countrymen; for I think
there are but three states out of the eleven which have desired an alteration of this. And, indeed, since the thing is established,
I would wish it not to be altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior to those, I believe,
of any man in the world, and who, alone, by the authority of his name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity,
is fully qualified to put the new government so under way as to secure it against the efforts of opposition. But, having derived
from our error all the good there was in it, I hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name at
the helm.

These, my dear friend, are my sentiments, by which you will see I was right in saying I am neither Federalist nor Anti-Federalist;
that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties. These, my opinions, I wrote within a few hours after I had
read the Constitution to one or two friends in America. I had not then read one single word printed on the subject. I never
had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured
me more esteem from some people, but less from myself. My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my
duty; to avoid attracting notice and to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even
when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise. The attaching circumstance of my present office is that
I can do its duties unseen by those for whom they are done.

You did not think, by so short a phrase in your letter, to have drawn on yourself such an egotistical dissertation. I beg
your pardon for it, and will endeavor to merit that pardon by the constant sentiments of esteem and attachment with which
I am, dear sir, your sincere friend and servant.

Source: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings,
Official and Private, H.A. Washington, ed., 1853-1854, 9 vols.

In 1902 Germany, Italy, and England blockaded the coast of Venezuela in an effort to collect debts that it had refused to
pay. President Roosevelt, concerned about the presence of Europeans in the vicinity of the uncompleted Panama Canal, made
a show of naval force and urged U.S. mediation. Two years later, when European powers threatened forcibly to collect debts
owed them by the Dominican Republic, the United States again intervened to make the collection. In his annual messages to
Congress in 1904 and 1905, Roosevelt formulated his "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, urging a new role for the United States
-- that of international policeman for the Western Hemisphere. In the message of 1905, which is reprinted here in part, he
spelled out in detail how the role was to be conceived.

One of the most effective instruments for peace is the Monroe Doctrine as it has been and is being gradually developed by
this nation and accepted by other nations. No other policy could have been as efficient in promoting peace in the Western
Hemisphere and in giving to each nation thereon the chance to develop along its own lines. If we had refused to apply the
doctrine to changing conditions, it would now be completely outworn, would not meet any of the needs of the present day, and,
indeed, would probably by this time have sunk into complete oblivion.

It is useful at home and is meeting with recognition abroad because we have adapted our application of it to meet the growing
and changing needs of the Hemisphere. When we announce a policy such as the Monroe Doctrine, we thereby commit ourselves to
the consequences of the policy, and those consequences from time to time alter. It is out of the question to claim a right
and yet shirk the responsibility for its exercise. Not only we but all American republics who are benefited by the existence
of the doctrine must recognize the obligations each nation is under as regards foreign peoples, no less than its duty to insist
upon its own rights.

That our rights and interests are deeply concerned in the maintenance of the doctrine is so clear as hardly to need argument.
This is especially true in view of the construction of the Panama Canal. As a mere matter of self-defense we must exercise
a close watch over the approaches to this canal; and this means that we must be thoroughly alive to our interests in the Caribbean
Sea.

There are certain essential points which must never be forgotten as regards the Monroe Doctrine. In the first place, we must
as a nation make it evident that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandizement on our part
at the expense of the republics to the south. We must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been
much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine as in some way inimical to their interests, and we must try to
convince all the other nations of this continent once and for all that no just and orderly government has anything to fear
from us.

There are certain republics to the south of us which have already reached such a point of stability, order, and prosperity
that they themselves, though as yet hardly consciously, are among the guarantors of this doctrine. These republics we now
meet, not only on a basis of entire equality but in a spirit of frank and respectful friendship, which we hope is mutual.
If all of the republics to the south of us will only grow as those to which I allude have already grown, all need for us to
be the especial champions of the doctrine will disappear, for no stable and growing American republic wishes to see some great
non-American military power acquire territory in its neighborhood. All that this country desires is that the other republics
on this continent shall be happy and prosperous; and they cannot be happy and prosperous unless they maintain order within
their boundaries and behave with a just regard for their obligations toward outsiders.

It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial
aggression. We desire peace with all the world, but perhaps most of all with the other peoples of the American continent.
There are, of course, limits to the wrongs which any self-respecting nation can endure. It is always possible that wrong actions
toward this nation or toward citizens of this nation in some state unable to keep order among its own people, unable to secure
justice from outsiders, and unwilling to do justice to those outsiders who treat it well, may result in our having to take
action to protect our rights; but such action will not be taken with a view to territorial aggression, and it will be taken
at all only with extreme reluctance and when it has become evident that every other resource has been exhausted.

Moreover, we must make it evident that we do not intend to permit the Monroe Doctrine to be used by any nation on this continent
as a shield to protect it from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations. If a republic to the south of
us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such as an outrage against a citizen of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine
does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment of the tort, save to see that the punishment does not assume the form
of territorial occupation in any shape.

The case is more difficult when it refers to a contractual obligation. Our own government has always refused to enforce such
contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by an appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign governments
would take the same view. But they do not; and in consequence we are liable at any time to be brought face to face with disagreeable
alternatives. On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting
a just debt; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power to take possession, even temporarily, of
the custom-houses of an American republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations; for such temporary occupation
might turn into a permanent occupation.

The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement
by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid. It is far better that this country should put through such
an arrangement, rather than allow any foreign country to undertake it. To do so insures the defaulting republic from having
to pay debt of an improper character under duress, while it also insures honest creditors of the republic from being passed
by in the interest of dishonest or grasping creditors. Moreover, for the United States to take such a position offers the
only possible way of insuring us against a clash with some foreign power. The position is, therefore, in the interest of peace
as well as in the interest of justice. It is of benefit to our people; it is of benefit to foreign peoples; and most of all
it is really of benefit to the people of the country concerned.

This brings me to what should be one of the fundamental objects of the Monroe Doctrine. We must ourselves in good faith try
to help upward toward peace and order those of our sister republics which need such help. Just as there has been a gradual
growth of the ethical element in the relations of one individual to another, so we are, even though slowly, more and more
coming to recognize the duty of bearing one another's burdens, not only as among individuals but also as among nations.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 11, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 1131-1181.

Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of that portion
of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased
to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with those
anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire. A rising
nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged
in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye-when
I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed
to the issue, and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the
undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high
authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all
difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated
with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which
we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world.

During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn
an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being
now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange
themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred
principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that
the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens,
unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and
even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance
under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic,
as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during
the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that
the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by
some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference
of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed
as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed,
that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would
the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm
on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve
itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every
man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own
personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted
with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative
government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded
to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth
and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions
of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and
their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them
inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence,
which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter-with
all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens-a
wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is
the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper
you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape
its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not
all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce,
and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their
rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies;
the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and
safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people-a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped
by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority,
the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the
supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the
honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as
its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion;
freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution
and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the
creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust;
and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road
which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen
the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man
to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence
you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place
in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only
as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment.
When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your
indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn
what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for the
past, and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate
that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.

Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever
you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies
of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of
this inauguration be simple and its words brief.

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage-of
our resolve-of our wisdom-our essential democracy.

If we meet that test-successfully and honorably-we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and
children will honor throughout all time.

As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen-in the presence of our
God-I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail.

In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work
and fight for total victory in war.

We can and we will achieve such a peace.

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately-but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes-but they
must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.

I remember that my old schoolmaster, Dr. Peabody, said, in days that seemed to us then to be secure and untroubled: "Things
in life will not always run smoothly. Sometimes we will be rising toward the heights-then all will seem to reverse itself
and start downward. The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward; that a line drawn
through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend."

Our Constitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument; it is not perfect yet. But it provided a firm base upon which all manner
of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.

And so today, in this year of war, 1945, we have learned lessons-at a fearful cost-and we shall profit by them.

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations
far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.

We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."

We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed
with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.

The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike
mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished
world.

So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly-to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for
all our fellow men-to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.

Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, led the United States to break diplomatic relations on February 3. President Wilson continued to hope
for peace, but events seemed to make American involvement more and more inevitable. The publication of the secret "Zimmermann
Note" from the German foreign secretary to his representative in Mexico proposing a Mexican-Japanese-German alliance against
the United States seemed to push the president closer than ever to war. American merchant ships were armed but losses to the
German submarine increased sharply. On April 2 Wilson, fully aware of the terrible consequences of his decision, went before
Congress with the following message calling for a declaration of war. Congress declared war on Germany four days later.

I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made,
and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility
of making.

On the 3rd of February last, I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German government
that on and after the 1st day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its
submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts
of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean.

That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial
government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that
passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek
to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair
chance to save their lives in their open boats. The precautions taken were meager and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing
instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was observed.

The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo,
their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy
for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. Even hospital ships and ships carrying
relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the
proscribed areas by the German government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk
with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed
to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would
be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world.
By painful stage after stage has that law been built up, with meager enough results, indeed, after all was accomplished that
could be accomplished, but always with a clear view, at least, of what the heart and conscience of mankind demanded.

This minimum of right the German government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had
no weapons which it could use at sea except these which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing
to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse
of the world. I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton
and wholesale destruction of the lives of noncombatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always,
even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of
peaceful and innocent people cannot be.

The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. It is a war against all nations. American
ships have been sunk, American lives taken in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of; but the ships and people
of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination.
The challenge is to all mankind.

Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of
counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away.
Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of
right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.

When I addressed the Congress on the 26th of February last, I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with
arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence.
But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines
have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has
assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open
sea.

It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavor to destroy them before they have shown their
own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German government denies the right of neutrals
to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist
has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on
our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be.

Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than
ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war
without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making:
we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or
violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.

With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities
which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare
the recent course of the Imperial German government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and people
of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that it take
immediate steps, not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense but also to exert all its power and employ
all its resources to bring the government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.

What this will involve is clear. It will involve the utmost practicable cooperation in counsel and action with the governments
now at war with Germany and, as incident to that, the extension to those governments of the most liberal financial credits,
in order that our resources may so far as possible be added to theirs. It will involve the organization and mobilization of
all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the nation in the
most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. It will involve the immediate full equipment of the
Navy in all respects but particularly in supplying it with the best means of dealing with the enemy's submarines. It will
involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States already provided for by law in case of war at least
500,000 men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization
of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training.

It will involve also, of course, the granting of adequate credits to the government, sustained, I hope, so far as they can
equitably be sustained by the present generation, by well-conceived taxation. I say sustained so far as may be equitable by
taxation because it seems to me that it would be most unwise to base the credits which will now be necessary entirely on money
borrowed. It is our duty, I most respectfully urge, to protect our people so far as we may against the very serious hardships
and evils which would be likely to arise out of the inflation which would be produced by vast loans.

In carrying out the measures by which these things are to be accomplished, we should keep constantly in mind the wisdom of
interfering as little as possible in our own preparation and in the equipment of our own military forces with the duty--for
it will be a very practical duty--of supplying the nations already at war with Germany with the materials which they can obtain
only from us or by our assistance. They are in the field and we should help them in every way to be effective there.

I shall take the liberty of suggesting, through the several executive departments of the government, for the consideration
of your committees, measures for the accomplishment of the several objects I have mentioned. I hope that it will be your pleasure
to deal with them as having been framed after very careful thought by the branch of the government upon which the responsibility
of conducting the war and safeguarding the nation will most directly fall.

While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world, what
our motives and our objects are. My own thought has not been driven from its habitual and normal course by the unhappy events
of the last two months, and I do not believe that the thought of the nation has been altered or clouded by them. I have exactly
the same things in mind now that I had in mind when I addressed the Senate on the 22nd of January last; the same that I had
in mind when I addressed the Congress on the 3rd of February and on the 26th of February.

Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and
autocratic power and to set up among the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and
of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where
the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence
of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people.
We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted
that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments
that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.

We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling toward them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon
their impulse that their government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was
a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their
rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed
to use their fellowmen as pawns and tools.

Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical
posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked
out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression,
carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts
or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion
commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs.

A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government
could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion.
Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no
one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common
end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.

Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful
and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it
best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships
of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit
of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in
origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all
their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is
a fit partner for a League of Honor.

One of the things that has served to convince us that the Prussian autocracy was not and could never be our friend is that
from the very outset of the present war it has filled our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of government with
spies and set criminal intrigues everywhere afoot against our national unity of counsel, our peace within and without, our
industries and our commerce. Indeed, it is now evident that its spies were here even before the war began; and it is unhappily
not a matter of conjecture but a fact proved in our courts of justice that the intrigues which have more than once come perilously
near to disturbing the peace and dislocating the industries of the country have been carried on at the instigation, with the
support, and even under the personal direction of official agents of the Imperial government accredited to the government
of the United States.

Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them, we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible
upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who
were no doubt as ignorant of them as we ourselves were) but only in the selfish designs of a government that did what it pleased
and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that government entertains
no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies
against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence.

We are accepting this challenge of hostile purpose because we know that in such a government, following such methods, we can
never have a friend; and that in the presence of its organized power, always lying in wait to accomplish we know not what
purpose, there can be no assured security for the democratic governments of the world. We are now about to accept gage of
battle with this natural foe to liberty and shall, if necessary, spend the whole force of the nation to check and nullify
its pretensions and its power. We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight
thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights
of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience.

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We
have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation
for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when
those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

Just because we fight without rancor and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share
with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe
with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for.

I have said nothing of the governments allied with the Imperial government of Germany because they have not made war upon
us or challenged us to defend our right and our honor. The Austro-Hungarian government has, indeed, avowed its unqualified
endorsement and acceptance of the reckless and lawless submarine warfare adopted now without disguise by the Imperial German
government, and it has therefore not been possible for this government to receive Count Tarnowski, the ambassador recently
accredited to this government by the Imperial and Royal government of Austria-Hungary; but that government has not actually
engaged in warfare against citizens of the United States on the seas, and I take the liberty, for the present at least, of
postponing a discussion of our relations with the authorities at Vienna. We enter this war only where we are clearly forced
into it because there are no other means of defending our rights.

It will be all the easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act
without animus, not in enmity toward a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in
armed opposition to an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is
running amuck. We are, let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the
early reestablishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us--however hard it may be for them, for the time
being, to believe that this is spoken from our hearts.

We have borne with their present government through all these bitter months because of that friendship--exercising a patience
and forbearance which would otherwise have been impossible. We shall, happily, still have an opportunity to prove that friendship
in our daily attitude and actions toward the millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live among
us and share our life, and we shall be proud to prove it toward all who are in fact loyal to their neighbors and to the government
in the hour of test. They are, most of them, as true and loyal Americans as if they had never known any other fealty or allegiance.
They will be prompt to stand with us in rebuking and restraining the few who may be of a different mind and purpose. If there
should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression; but, if it lifts its head at all, it will
lift it only here and there and without countenance except from a lawless and malignant few.

It is a distressing and oppressive duty, gentlemen of the Congress, which I have performed in thus addressing you. There are,
it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people
into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right
is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts--for democracy,
for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small
nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations
and make the world itself at last free.

To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride
of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that
gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four American passenger jets and used the planes as guided missiles to attack symbolic targets on the Eastern Seaboard
of the United States. Two planes slammed into the World Trade Center Towers in New York City, causing both towers to collapse.
A third plane crashed into the Pentagon, near Washington, D.C., and a fourth went down in the Pennsylvania countryside when
passengers resisted the hijackers. The devastating series of attacks killed some 3,000 Americans, more than had died in the
Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 60 years previously. In the hours and days following September 11, American and foreign
intelligence services identified Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire living in exile in Afghanistan, as the mastermind behind
the attacks. On September 20, President George W. Bush spoke before a Joint Session of Congress and outlined America's response
to the events of September 11. In the speech, televised live around the nation and the world and excerpted here, Bush announced
that “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda (the terrorist network associated with bin Laden), but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Less than three weeks
after Bush's speech, American forces launched a military campaign in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden and overthrow Afghanistan's
Taliban government, which had long aided and abetted bin Laden and other terrorists. Although bin Laden's whereabouts and
fate were unknown at the end of 2001, the American campaign in Afghanistan succeeded in toppling the Taliban from power and
inflicting major damage on bin Laden's terrorist network. With American support, a new pro-Western government was installed
in Afghanistan in early 2002.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans: In the normal course of events, Presidents
come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered
by the American people.

We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground--passengers like an exceptional
man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. We have seen the state
of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles,
the giving of blood, the saying of prayers--in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving
people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen
for itself the state of our Union--and it is strong. Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.
Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies,
justice will be done.

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy
to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing “God Bless America.” And you did more
than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert,
Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and
for your service to our country.

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds
of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. We will not
forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque
in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. Nor will we
forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250
citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no
truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause--so honored the British Prime Minister
has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend.

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars--but for
the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties
of war--but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks--but never before
on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day--and night fell on a different world, a world where
freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points
to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for
bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the
mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world--and imposing its radical beliefs on people
everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast
majority of Muslim clerics--a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands
them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women
and children.

This group and its leader--a person named Osama bin Laden--are linked to many other organizations in different countries,
including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more
than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan,
where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the
world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban
regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.

Afghanistan's people have been brutalized--many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You
can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan
if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan--after all, we are currently its largest
source of humanitarian aid--but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening
people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime
is committing murder.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities
all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly
imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every
terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate
authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the
terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many
millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful,
and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith,
trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.
Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda,
but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber--a democratically elected government.
Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote
and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of
vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With
every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against
us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies
of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions--by abandoning every value except the will to
power--they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to
where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy,
every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of
war--to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. . . . Our response involves far more than instant retaliation
and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.
It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of
funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue
nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect
Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities
affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of
a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me--the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight I also announce a distinguished
American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot,
a trusted friend--Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard
our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate
it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the
reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from
the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason.
The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight.
This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask
every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems
around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded--with
sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO
Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. . . .

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have
fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles,
and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because
of their ethnic background or religious faith. . . .

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come
together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before
they strike. We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work.
Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani. As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the
world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed--all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them--it is natural
to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers
to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined
and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our
moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom--the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of
every time--now depends on us. Our nation--this generation--will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future.
We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not
fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines,
and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened
that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came--where we were and what we were doing. Some will
remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to
save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended,
and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent
in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its
outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between
them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice--assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories
to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.

Source: “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,” September 20, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov

General: It is my design, if the enemy keep quiet and allow me to take the initiative in the spring campaign, to work all
parts of the army together, and somewhat toward a common centre. For your information I now write you my programme, as at
present determined upon.

I have sent orders to Banks, by private messenger, to finish up his present expedition against Shreveport with all dispatch;
to turn over the defense of Red River to General Steele and the navy, and to return your troops to you, and his own to New
Orleans; to abandon all of Texas, except the Rio Grande, and to hold that with not to exceed four thousand men; to reduce
the number of troops on the Mississippi to the lowest number necessary to hold it, and to collect from his command not less
than twenty-five thousand men. To this I will add five thousand from Missouri. With this force he is to commence operations
against Mobile as soon as he can. It will be impossible for him to commence too early.

Gillmore joins Butler with ten thousand men, and the two operate against Richmond from the south side of James River. This
will give Butler thirty-three thousand men to operate with, W. F. Smith commanding the right wing of his forces, and Gillmore
the left wing. I will stay with the Army of the Potomac, increased by Burnside's corps of not less than twenty-five thousand
effective men, and operate directly against Lee's army, wherever it may be found.

Sigel collects all his available force in two columns, one, under Ord and Averill, to start from Beverly, Virginia, and the
other, under Crook, to start from Charleston, on the Kanawha, to move against the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad.

Crook will have all cavalry, and will endeavor to get in about Saltville, and move east from there to join Ord. His force
will be all cavalry, while Ord will have from ten to twelve thousand men of all arms.

You I propose to move against Johnston's army, to break it up, and to get into the interior of the enemy's country as far
as you can, inflicting all the damage you can against their war resources.

I do not propose to lay down for you a plan of campaign, but simply to lay down the work it is desirable to have done, and
leave you free to execute it in your own way. Submit to me, however, as early as you can, your plan of operations.

As stated, Banks is ordered to commence operations as soon as he can. Gillmore is ordered to report at Fortress Monroe by
the 18th inst., or as soon thereafter as practicable. Sigel is concentrating now. None will move from their places of rendezvous
until I direct, except Banks. I want to be ready to move by the 25th inst., if possible; but all I can now direct is that
you get ready as soon as possible. I know you will have difficulties to encounter in getting through the mountains to where
supplies are abundant, but I believe you will accomplish it.

From the expedition from the Department of West Virginia I do not calculate on very great results; but it is the only way
I can take troops from there. With the long line of railroad Sigel has to protect, he can spare no troops, except to move
directly to his front. In this way he must get through to inflict great damage on the enemy, or the enemy must detach from
one of his armies a large force to prevent it. In other words, if Sigel can't skin himself, he can hold a leg while some one
else skins.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

. . .

April 19, 1864

What I now want more particularly to say is, that if the two main attacks, yours and the one from here, should promise great
success, the enemy may, in a fit of desperation, abandon one part of their line of defense, and throw their whole strength
upon the other, believing a single defeat without any victory to sustain them better than a defeat all along their line, and
hoping too, at the same time, that the army, meeting with no resistance, will rest perfectly satisfied with their laurels,
having penetrated to a given point south, thereby enabling them to throw their force first upon one and then on the other.

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

Source: William T. Sherman, Memoirs of General William T. Sherman, 2 vol. (1875).

President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens, the peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet
common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.

As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation.

And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace. I am honored and humbled to stand
here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new
world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom,
the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that
no insignificant person was ever born.

Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes
delayed, we must follow no other course.

Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon
the wind, taking root in many nations.

Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do
not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. The ambitions of some
Americans are limited by failing schools and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences
run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.

We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every
generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.

I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image.

And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift
us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen
must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today, we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of
us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear
small.

But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do
not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If
we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over
cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if we keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.

America, at its best, is also courageous.

Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defending common dangers defined our common good.
Now we must choose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time
of blessing by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives.

We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will
reduce taxes, to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans.

We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our
country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power
that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression
and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy
of our nation's promise.

And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts
of God, they are failures of love.

And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities.
And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.

Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion
is the work of a nation, not just a government.

And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity,
synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal:
When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected.

Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it
brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children
and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored
acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small
things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage,
to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.

In all these ways, I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed
reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens: citizens, not
spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves.
When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can
stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “We know the race
is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this
day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and
our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today, to make our country more just and generous, to
affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

In the fall of 1865 President Andrew Johnson sent several prominent men, including Carl Schurz, Harvey Watterson, and General
Grant, to tour the South and report to him on the conditions they observed. Schurz's report dwelt on Southern intransigence
and urged a harsher Reconstruction policy in line with the recommendations of Congress. Watterson and Grant, on the other
hand, pointed out that the South was conciliatory and upheld the President's policy. Grant, who left Washington on November
29 and visited major cities in North and South Carolina, and Georgia, sent the following report to the President on December
18.

Sir:

In reply to your note of the 16th instant requesting a report from me giving such information as I may be possessed of coming
within the scope of the inquiries made by the Senate of the United States in their resolution of the 12th instant, I have
the honor to submit the following:

With your approval, and also that of the honorable secretary of war, I left Washington city on the 27th of last month for
the purpose of making a tour of inspection through some of the Southern states, or states lately in rebellion, and to see
what changes were necessary to be made in the disposition of the military forces of the country; how these forces could be
reduced and expenses curtailed, etc.; and to learn, as far as possible, the feelings and intentions of the citizens of those
states toward the general government.

The state of Virginia, being so accessible to Washington city, and information from this quarter, therefore, being readily
obtained, I hastened through the state without conversing or meeting with any of its citizens. In Raleigh, North Carolina,
I spent one day; in Charleston, South Carolina, two days; Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, each one day. Both in traveling and
while stopping, I saw much and conversed freely with the citizens of those states, as well as with officers of the Army who
have been stationed among them. The following are the conclusions come to by me.

I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The questions
which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections -- slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union -- they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal --
arms -- that man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that they not only accepted the decision
arrived at as final but, now that the smoke of battle has cleared away and time has been given for reflection, that this decision
has been a fortunate one for the whole country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field
and in council.

Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the point of the bayonet throughout the states in rebellion, have
left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that ready obedience to civil authority the American people have generally
been in the habit of yielding. This would render the presence of small garrisons throughout those states necessary until such
time as labor returns to its proper channel and civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone, either those
holding places under the government or citizens of the Southern states, who think it practicable to withdraw the military
from the South at present. The white and the black mutually require the protection of the general governments.

There is such universal acquiescence in the authority of the general government throughout the portions of country visited
by me that the mere presence of a military force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain order. The good of
the country and economy require that the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen (elsewhere in the Southern states than at forts upon the seacoast no force is necessary), should all be white troops. The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes
labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White troops
generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored troops
must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves. It is not the thinking men who would use violence toward any class
of troops sent among them by the general government, but the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to be
imbued with the idea that the property of his late master should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no protection
from the colored soldier. There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes.

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of the Southern states are anxious to return to self-government
within the Union as soon as possible; that while reconstructing they want and require protection from the government; that
they are in earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the government, not humiliating to them as citizens, and
that if such a course were pointed out they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that there cannot be a greater
commingling, at this time, between the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those entrusted with the lawmaking
power.

I did not give the operations of the Freedmen's Bureau that attention I would have done if more time had been at my disposal. Conversations on the subject, however, with officers
connected with the bureau lead me to think that in some of the states its affairs have not been conducted with good judgment
or economy, and that the belief widely spread among the freedmen of the Southern states that the lands of their former owners
will, at least in part, be divided among them has come from the agents of this bureau. This belief is seriously interfering
with the willingness of the freedmen to make contracts for the coming year. In some form the Freedmen's Bureau is an absolute
necessity until civil law is established and enforced, securing to the freedmen their rights and full protection. At present,
however, it is independent of the military establishment of the country and seems to be operated by the different agents of
the bureau according to their individual notions. Everywhere General Howard, the able head of the bureau, made friends by
the just and fair instructions and advice he gave; but the complaint in South Carolina was that when he left, things went
on as before.

Many, perhaps the majority, of the agents of the Freedmen's Bureau advise the freedmen that by their own industry they must
expect to live. To this end they endeavor to secure employment for them and to see that both contracting parties comply with
their engagements. In some instances, I am sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be disabused of the idea that
a freedman has the right to live without care or provision for the future. The effect of the belief in division of lands is
idleness and accumulation in camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be found that vice and disease will tend
to the extermination or great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the South
for years can be changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a few years, not only laws to protect them but
the fostering care of those who will give them good counsel and on whom they rely.

The Freedmen's Bureau, being separated from the military establishment of the country requires all the expenses of a separate
organization. One does not necessarily know what the other is doing or what orders they are acting under. It seems to me this
could be corrected by regarding every officer on duty with troops in the Southern states as an agent of the Freedmen's Bureau,
and then have all orders, from the head of the bureau sent through department commanders. This would create a responsibility
that would secure uniformity of action throughout all the South; would insure the orders and instructions from the head of
the bureau being carried out, and would relieve from duty and pay a large number of employees of the government.

Barack Obama: Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

By the time of the 2004 election campaign, political pundits routinely divided the United States into red and blue states,
whose color not only indicated which political party was locally dominant but also signified the supposed prevalence of a
set of social and cultural values. According to the received wisdom, the Republican red states—generally located in the South,
West, and lower Midwest—were conservative, God-fearing, pro-life, opposed to big government and same-sex marriage, small-town
and suburban, and enamored of NASCAR. The Democratic blue states—found mostly on the coasts, in the Northeast, and in the
Upper Midwest—were liberal, secular, politically correct, pro-choice, urban, and connoisseurs of wine, cheese, and latte.
Though the symbolic palette dated only to the 2000 election and reversed the colors theretofore generally used to represent
the Democratic and Republican parties, it was firmly established when Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated
Vietnam veteran who later prominently opposed the war, was chosen by the Democrats to face Republican incumbent George W.
Bush in one of the most partisan and polarizing presidential elections in recent American history. The keynote address at
the Democratic Convention (printed below) in Boston was delivered by Barack Obama, who was about to become only the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate. The child of an estranged Kenyan father and white Kansan mother and raised mostly in Hawaii,
Obama—a one-time community organizer, law professor, and author—became an instant national figure with his eloquent address,
in which he debunked the country's artificial red-blue division and offered ‘‘the audacity of hope,” a phrase that would become
the title of the book he published shortly before becoming a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.

On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me express my deepest gratitude for
the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this
stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding
goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study
in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying
here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil
rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton's army, marched
across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they
studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and later moved west in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable
love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or “blessed,”
believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the
land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential. They're
both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with great pride.

I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my two precious daughters.
I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before
me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation—not
because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on
a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, an insistence on small miracles. That we can
tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write
what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying
a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our
votes will be counted—at least, most of the time.

This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and
see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans—Democrats,
Republicans, Independents—I say to you tonight: We have more work to do. More work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg,
Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with
their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father that I met who was losing his job and
choking back the tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 dollars a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits
that he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has
the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.

Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government
to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties
around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go
into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach our kids to learn. They know that
parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and
eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all
their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every
child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.
And they want that choice.

In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer.
And that man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice because they've defined his
life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the
United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier
ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.

John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs
overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans
can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence,
so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the
constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties
nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes,
but it should never be the first option.

A while back, I met a young man named Shamus in a VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six two or
six three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.
As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and
service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving
Shamus as well as he is serving us? I thought of the more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and
wives, friends and neighbors, who won't be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I had met who were
struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered,
but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's
way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families
while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the
war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be
defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served
with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous
individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we're all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters
to me, even if it's not my child. If there is a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose
between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family
being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief—I
am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper—that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual
dreams and yet still come together as one American family. E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace
the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there
is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's
the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for
Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and
we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and
have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported it.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics
of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here—the almost
willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve
itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire
singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely
patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny
name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!

In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation: the belief in things not seen, the belief that
there are better days ahead.I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to
opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across
America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices,
and meet the challenges that face us. America!

Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do—if we do
what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people
will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as President, and John Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President,
and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and
God bless you.

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there
was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration
of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest
which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress
of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably
satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded
it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving
the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the Union and
divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern
part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of
the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union
even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither
party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause
of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a
result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against
the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat
of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither
has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be
that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those
offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now
wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came,
shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to
Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that
it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and
until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years
ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive
on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his
widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Under Providence I have been called a second time to act as Executive over this great nation. It has been my endeavor in the
past to maintain all the laws, and, so far as lay in my power, to act for the best interests of the whole people. My best
efforts will be given in the same direction in the future, aided, I trust, by my four years' experience in the office.

When my first term of the office of Chief Executive began, the country had not recovered from the effects of a great internal
revolution, and three of the former States of the Union had not been restored to their Federal relations.

It seemed to me wise that no new questions should be raised so long as that condition of affairs existed. Therefore the past
four years, so far as I could control events, have been consumed in the effort to restore harmony, public credit, commerce,
and all the arts of peace and progress. It is my firm conviction that the civilized world is tending toward republicanism,
or government by the people through their chosen representatives, and that our own great Republic is destined to be the guiding
star to all others.

Under our Republic we support an army less than that of any European power of any standing and a navy less than that of either
of at least five of them. There could be no extension of territory on the continent which would call for an increase of this
force, but rather might such extension enable us to diminish it.

The theory of government changes with general progress. Now that the telegraph is made available for communicating thought,
together with rapid transit by steam, all parts of a continent are made contiguous for all purposes of government, and communication
between the extreme limits of the country made easier than it was throughout the old thirteen States at the beginning of our
national existence.

The effects of the late civil strife have been to free the slave and make him a citizen. Yet he is not possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it. This is wrong,
and should be corrected. To this correction I stand committed, so far as Executive influence can avail.

Social equality is not a subject to be legislated upon, nor shall I ask that anything be done to advance the social status
of the colored man, except to give him a fair chance to develop what there is good in him, give him access to the schools,
and when he travels let him feel assured that his conduct will regulate the treatment and fare he will receive.

The States lately at war with the General Government are now happily rehabilitated, and no Executive control is exercised
in any one of them that would not be exercised in any other State under like circumstances.

In the first year of the past Administration the proposition came up for the admission of Santo Domingo as a Territory of
the Union. It was not a question of my seeking, but was a proposition from the people of Santo Domingo, and which I entertained.
I believe now, as I did then, that it was for the best interest of this country, for the people of Santo Domingo, and all
concerned that the proposition should be received favorably. It was, however, rejected constitutionally, and therefore the
subject was never brought up again by me.

In future, while I hold my present office, the subject of acquisition of territory must have the support of the people before
I will recommend any proposition looking to such acquisition. I say here, however, that I do not share in the apprehension
held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by reason of their extension of territory. Commerce,
education, and rapid transit of thought and matter by telegraph and steam have changed all this. Rather do I believe that
our Great Maker is preparing the world, in His own good time, to become one nation, speaking one language, and when armies
and navies will be no longer required.

My efforts in the future will be directed to the restoration of good feeling between the different sections of our common
country; to the restoration of our currency to a fixed value as compared with the world's standard of values-gold-and, if
possible, to a par with it; to the construction of cheap routes of transit throughout the land, to the end that the products
of all may find a market and leave a living remuneration to the producer; to the maintenance of friendly relations with all
our neighbors and with distant nations; to the reestablishment of our commerce and share in the carrying trade upon the ocean;
to the encouragement of such manufacturing industries as can be economically pursued in this country, to the end that the
exports of home products and industries may pay for our imports-the only sure method of returning to and permanently maintaining
a specie basis; to the elevation of labor; and, by a humane course, to bring the aborigines of the country under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination: Wars
of extermination, engaged in by people pursuing commerce and all industrial pursuits, are expensive even against the weakest
people, and are demoralizing and wicked. Our superiority of strength and advantages of civilization should make us lenient
toward the Indian. The wrong inflicted upon him should be taken into account and the balance placed to his credit. The moral
view of the question should be considered and the question asked, Can not the Indian be made a useful and productive member
of society by proper teaching and treatment? If the effort is made in good faith, we will stand better before the civilized
nations of the earth and in our own consciences for having made it.

All these things are not to be accomplished by one individual, but they will receive my support and such recommendations to
Congress as will in my judgment best serve to carry them into effect. I beg your support and encouragement.

It has been, and is, my earnest desire to correct abuses that have grown up in the civil service of the country. To secure
this reformation rules regulating methods of appointment and promotions were established and have been tried. My efforts for
such reformation shall be continued to the best of my judgment. The spirit of the rules adopted will be maintained.

I acknowledge before this assemblage, representing, as it does, every section of our country, the obligation I am under to
my countrymen for the great honor they have conferred on me by returning me to the highest office within their gift, and the
further obligation resting on me to render to them the best services within my power. This I promise, looking forward with
the greatest anxiety to the day when I shall be released from responsibilities that at times are almost overwhelming, and
from which I have scarcely had a respite since the eventful firing upon Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the present day. My
services were then tendered and accepted under the first call for troops growing out of that event.

I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was
resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of the nation. I performed a conscientious duty,
without asking promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling toward any section or individual.

Notwithstanding this, throughout the war, and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close of the last Presidential
campaign, I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day I feel that
I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict, which I gratefully accept as my vindication.

As Britain's situation in the war grew more desperate, her ability to pay for needed arms and material rapidly diminished. Following his election to a third
term in November 1940, President Roosevelt determined to find some means of underwriting an Allied victory over Germany without
huge intergovernment loans. In mid-December he hit upon the idea of Lend-Lease; the materials of war would be turned over
to Allied nations now, and would be paid for at the end of the war in goods and services. In a press conference on December
17, Roosevelt outlined in simple terms the underlying premises of the Lend-Lease program. Two weeks later, in an effort to
rally public opinion behind his program, Roosevelt delivered one of his most famous "Fireside Chats"--the "arsenal of democracy"
speech--on December 29, in which he called upon the American people to assume new responsibilities as guardians of the freedom
of the world. A portion of the December 17 press conference is reprinted here.

In the present world situation of course there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of a very overwhelming number of Americans
that the best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Great Britain in defending itself; and that, therefore,
quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy in the world as a whole, it is equally important,
from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help the British Empire to defend itself.
. . .

It isn't merely a question of doing things the traditional way; there are lots of other ways of doing them. I am just talking
background, informally; I haven't prepared any of this--I go back to the idea that the one thing necessary for American national
defense is additional productive facilities; and the more we increase those facilities--factories, shipbuilding ways, munition
plants, et cetera, and so on--the stronger American national defense is.

Orders from Great Britain are therefore a tremendous asset to American national defense because they automatically create
additional facilities. I am talking selfishly, from the American point of view--nothing else. Therefore, from the selfish
point of view, that production must be encouraged by us. There are several ways of encouraging it--not just one, as the narrow-minded
fellow I have been talking about might assume, and has assumed. He has assumed that the only way was to repeal certain existing
statutes, like the Neutrality Act and the old Johnson Act and a few other things like that, and then to lend the money to
Great Britain to be spent over here--either lend it through private banking circles, as was done in the earlier days of the
previous war, or make it a loan from this government to the British government.

Well, that is one type of mind that can think only of that method somewhat banal.

There is another one which is also somewhat banal--we may come to it, I don't know--and that is a gift; in other words, for
us to pay for all these munitions, ships, plants, guns, et cetera, and make a gift of them to Great Britain. I am not at all
sure that that is a necessity, and I am not at all sure that Great Britain would care to have a gift from the taxpayers of
the United States. I doubt it very much.

Well, there are other possible ways, and those ways are being explored. All I can do is to speak in very general terms, because
we are in the middle of it. I have been at it now three or four weeks, exploring other methods of continuing the building
up of our productive facilities and continuing automatically the flow of munitions to Great Britain. I will just put it this
way, not as an exclusive alternative method but as one of several other possible methods that might be devised toward that
end.

It is possible--I will put it that way--for the United States to take over British orders and, because they are essentially
the same kind of munitions that we use ourselves, turn them into American orders. We have enough money to do it. And thereupon,
as to such portion of them as the military events of the future determine to be right and proper for us to allow to go to
the other side, either lease or sell the materials, subject to mortgage, to the people on the other side. That would be on
the general theory that it may still prove true that the best defense of Great Britain is the best defense of the United States,
and therefore that these materials would be more useful to the defense of the United States if they were used in Great Britain
than if they were kept in storage here.

Now, what I am trying to do is to eliminate the dollar sign. That is something brand new in the thoughts of practically everybody
in this room, I think--get rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign.

Well, let me give you an illustration: Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose 400 or
500 feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire. Now,
what do I do? I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for
it." What is the transaction that goes on? I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. All right.
If it goes through the fire all right, intact, without any damage to it, he gives it back to me and thanks me very much for
the use of it. But suppose it gets smashed up--holes in it--during the fire; we don't have to have too much formality about
it, but I say to him, "I was glad to lend you that hose; I see I can't use it any more, it's all smashed up." He says, "How
many feet of it were there?" I tell him, "There were 150 feet of it." He says, "All right, I will replace it." Now, if I get
a nice garden hose back, I am in pretty good shape.

In other words, if you lend certain munitions and get the munitions back at the end of the war, if they are intact--haven't
been hurt--you are all right; if they have been damaged or have deteriorated or have been lost completely, it seems to me
you come out pretty well if you have them replaced by the fellow to whom you have lent them.

I can't go into details; and there is no use asking legal questions about how you would do it, because that is the thing that
is now under study; but the thought is that we would take over not all, but a very large number of, future British orders;
and when they came off the line, whether they were planes or guns or something else, we would enter into some kind of arrangement
for their use by the British on the ground that it was the best thing for American defense, with the understanding that when
the show was over, we would get repaid sometime in kind, thereby leaving out the dollar mark in the form of a dollar debt
and substituting for it a gentleman's obligation to repay in kind. I think you all get it.

The philosopher John Taylor (John Taylor of Caroline), who had stood with Thomas Jefferson through 20 years of political conflict,
completed his magnum opus, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States, in 1814. Taylor intended the work to be a definitive answer to the theories of government of John Adams and the Federalists,
and he sent a copy to his old friend and political ally. Jefferson read the book carefully and wrote a letter containing his
comments to the author. The letter, dated May 28, 1816, contains a statement of Jefferson's mature thinking on the subject
of republican government. The indirect method of electing senators to which Jefferson refers was in effect until 1913, when
it was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment.

On my return from a long journey and considerable absence from home, I found here the copy of your Enquiry into the Principles of Our Government, which you had been so kind as to send me; and for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The difficulties of getting new works
in our situation, inland and without a single bookstore, are such as had prevented my obtaining a copy before; and letters
which had accumulated during my absence, and were calling for answers, have not yet permitted me to give to the whole a thorough
reading. Yet, certain that you and I could not think differently on the fundamentals of rightful government, I was impatient,
and availed myself of the intervals of repose from the writing table to obtain a cursory idea of the body of the work.

I see in it much matter for profound reflection; much which should confirm our adhesion, in practice, to the good principles
of our Constitution, and fix our attention on what is yet to be made good. The sixth section on the good moral principles
of our government I found so interesting and replete with sound principles as to postpone my letter writing to its thorough
perusal and consideration. Besides much other good matter, it settles unanswerably the right of instructing representatives,
and their duty to obey. The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in
all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption,
and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to
a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally,
by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth He made for their subsistence, unencumbered by
their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life.

You have successfully and completely pulverized Mr. Adams' system of orders, and his opening the mantle of republicanism to
every government of laws, whether consistent or not with natural right. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the term "republic"
is of very vague application in every language. Witness the self-styled republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice,
Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say that, purely and simply, it means a government
by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other
government is more or less republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct
action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if
it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township.

The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where
the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen by the citizens either pro hâc vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider
as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is practicable on a large scale of country or population. And we have examples
of it in some of our state constitutions, which, if not poisoned by priestcraft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures
with other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best.

Other shades of republicanism may be found in other forms of government, where the executive, judiciary, and legislative functions,
and the different branches of the latter, are chosen by the people more or less directly, for longer terms of years, or for
life, or made hereditary; or where there are mixtures of authorities, some dependent on, and others independent of, the people.
The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient
of republicanism; evidently none where the authorities are hereditary, as in France, Venice, etc., or self-chosen, as in Holland;
and little, where for life, in proportion as the life continues in being after the act of election.

The purest republican feature in the government of our own state is the House of Representatives. The Senate is equally so
the first year, less the second, and so on. The executive still less, because not chosen by the people directly. The judiciary,
seriously antirepublican, because for life; and the national arm wielded, as you observe, by military leaders, irresponsible
but to themselves. Add to this the vicious constitution of our county courts (to whom the justice, the executive administration,
the taxation, police, the military appointments of the county, and nearly all our daily concerns are confided)--self-appointed,
self-continued, holding their authorities for life, and with an impossibility of breaking in on the perpetual succession of
any faction once possessed of the bench. They are in truth the executive, the judiciary, and the military of their respective
counties, and the sum of the counties makes the state.

And add, also, that one-half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation,
as if society were instituted for the soil and not for the men inhabiting it; or one-half of these could dispose of the rights
and the will of the other half, without their consent.

What constitutes a State?

Not high-raised battlements, or labored mound,

Thick wall, or moated gate;

Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned;

No: men, high-minded men,

Men, who their duties know;

But know their rights; and, knowing, dare maintain.

These constitute a State.

In the general government, the House of Representatives is mainly republican; the Senate scarcely so at all, as not elected
by the people directly, and so long secured even against those who do elect them; the executive more republican than the Senate,
from its shorter term, its election by the people, in practice (for they vote for A only on an assurance that he will vote for B), and because, in practice also, a principle of rotation seems to be in a course of establishment; the judiciary independent of the nation, their coercion
by impeachment being found nugatory.

If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of its republicanism, and I confess
I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected;
in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents than their rights and their interest require.
And this I ascribe, not to any want of republican dispositions in those who formed these constitutions but to a submission
of true principle to European authorities, to speculators on government, whose fears of the people have been inspired by the
populace of their own great cities, and were unjustly entertained against the independent, the happy, and, therefore, orderly
citizens of the United States.

Much I apprehend that the golden moment is past for reforming these heresies. The functionaries of public power rarely strengthen
in their dispositions to abridge it, and an unorganized call for timely amendment is not likely to prevail against an unorganized
opposition to it. We are always told that things are going on well; why change them? "Chi sta bene, non si muove," says the Italian, "let him who stands well, stand still." This is true; and I verily believe they would go on well with
us under an absolute monarch, while our present character remains, of order, industry, and love of peace, and restrained,
as he would be, by the proper spirit of the people. But it is while it remains such, we should provide against the consequences
of its deterioration. And let us rest in the hope that it will yet be done, and spare ourselves the pain of evils which may
never happen.

On this view of the import of the term "republic," instead of saying, as has been said, "that it may mean anything or nothing,"
we may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican, as they have more or less of the element of
popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository
of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people are less injurious than those
from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient.
And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle
of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Several church bodies, notably Catholics and Lutherans, developed extensive systems of parochial education in the latter half
of the nineteenth century. The parochial school was based on the conviction that "secular" education was inadequate, even dangerous, for children of church affiliation.
The churches that were engaged in education argued that they had a right to some of the public funds that were devoted to
schools. Bishops Michael Corrigan of Newark and John Ireland of St. Paul both actively sought public funds for Catholic schools.
In Illinois, it was feared that the combined vote of the Catholic and Lutheran electorate would endanger the very existence
of the public school system. With such issues as these in mind, President Grant made the following remarks at Des Moines,
Iowa, in 1876.

I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics, but it is a fair subject for soldiers in their
deliberations to consider what may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battled in a republic like ours; where
the citizen is the sovereign and the official the servant; where no power is exercised except by the will of the people. It
is important that the sovereign, the people, should foster intelligence and the promoter of that intelligence which is to
preserve us as a nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future for our national existence, I predict that the
dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's line but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition,
ambition, and ignorance on the other.

Now, the centennial year of our national existence, I believe, is a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundations
of the structure commenced by our patriotic fathers a hundred years ago at Lexington. Let us labor to add all needful guarantees
for the greater security of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and equal
rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion. Encourage free schools and resolve that
not one dollar of the money appropriated to their support shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school; that
neither the state or nation, not both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford
to every child in the land the opportunity of a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical
dogma.

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and private schools entirely supported by private contributions.
Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee
will not have been fought in vain.

I ask you to share with me today the majesty of this moment. In the orderly transfer of power, we celebrate the unity that
keeps us free.

Each moment in history is a fleeting time, precious and unique. But some stand out as moments of beginning, in which courses
are set that shape decades or centuries.

This can be such a moment.

Forces now are converging that make possible, for the first time, the hope that many of man's deepest aspirations can at last
be realized. The spiraling pace of change allows us to contemplate, within our own lifetime, advances that once would have
taken centuries.

In throwing wide the horizons of space, we have discovered new horizons on earth.

For the first time, because the people of the world want peace, and the leaders of the world are afraid of war, the times
are on the side of peace.

Eight years from now America will celebrate its 200th anniversary as a nation. Within the lifetime of most people now living,
mankind will celebrate that great new year which comes only once in a thousand years-the beginning of the third millennium.

What kind of nation we will be, what kind of world we will live in, whether we shape the future in the image of our hopes,
is ours to determine by our actions and our choices.

The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. This honor now beckons America-the chance to help lead the
world at last out of the valley of turmoil, and onto that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization.

If we succeed, generations to come will say of us now living that we mastered our moment, that we helped make the world safe
for mankind.

This is our summons to greatness.

I believe the American people are ready to answer this call.

The second third of this century has been a time of proud achievement. We have made enormous strides in science and industry
and agriculture. We have shared our wealth more broadly than ever. We have learned at last to manage a modern economy to assure
its continued growth.

We have given freedom new reach, and we have begun to make its promise real for black as well as for white.

We see the hope of tomorrow in the youth of today. I know America's youth. I believe in them. We can be proud that they are
better educated, more committed, more passionately driven by conscience than any generation in our history.

No people has ever been so close to the achievement of a just and abundant society, or so possessed of the will to achieve
it. Because our strengths are so great, we can afford to appraise our weaknesses with candor and to approach them with hope.

Standing in this same place a third of a century ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed a Nation ravaged by depression and
gripped in fear. He could say in surveying the Nation's troubles: "They concern, thank God, only material things."

Our crisis today is the reverse.

We have found ourselves rich in goods, but ragged in spirit; reaching with magnificent precision for the moon, but falling
into raucous discord on earth.

We are caught in war, wanting peace. We are torn by division, wanting unity. We see around us empty lives, wanting fulfillment.
We see tasks that need doing, waiting for hands to do them.

To a crisis of the spirit, we need an answer of the spirit.

To find that answer, we need only look within ourselves.

When we listen to "the better angels of our nature," we find that they celebrate the simple things, the basic things-such
as goodness, decency, love, kindness.

Greatness comes in simple trappings.

The simple things are the ones most needed today if we are to surmount what divides us, and cement what unites us.

To lower our voices would be a simple thing.

In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can
deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading.

We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another-until we speak quietly enough so that our words can
be heard as well as our voices.

For its part, government will listen. We will strive to listen in new ways-to the voices of quiet anguish, the voices that
speak without words, the voices of the heart-to the injured voices, the anxious voices, the voices that have despaired of
being heard.

Those who have been left out, we will try to bring in.

Those left behind, we will help to catch up.

For all of our people, we will set as our goal the decent order that makes progress possible and our lives secure.

As we reach toward our hopes, our task is to build on what has gone before-not turning away from the old, but turning toward
the new.

In this past third of a century, government has passed more laws, spent more money, initiated more programs, than in all our
previous history.

In pursuing our goals of full employment, better housing, excellence in education; in rebuilding our cities and improving
our rural areas; in protecting our environment and enhancing the quality of life-in all these and more, we will and must press
urgently forward.

We shall plan now for the day when our wealth can be transferred from the destruction of war abroad to the urgent needs of
our people at home.

The American dream does not come to those who fall asleep.

But we are approaching the limits of what government alone can do.

Our greatest need now is to reach beyond government, and to enlist the legions of the concerned and the committed.

What has to be done, has to be done by government and people together or it will not be done at all. The lesson of past agony
is that without the people we can do nothing; with the people we can do everything.

To match the magnitude of our tasks, we need the energies of our people-enlisted not only in grand enterprises, but more importantly
in those small, splendid efforts that make headlines in the neighborhood newspaper instead of the national journal.

With these, we can build a great cathedral of the spirit-each of us raising it one stone at a time, as he reaches out to his
neighbor, helping, caring, doing.

I do not offer a life of uninspiring ease. I do not call for a life of grim sacrifice. I ask you to join in a high adventure-one
as rich as humanity itself, and as exciting as the times we live in.

The essence of freedom is that each of us shares in the shaping of his own destiny.

Until he has been part of a cause larger than himself, no man is truly whole.

The way to fulfillment is in the use of our talents; we achieve nobility in the spirit that inspires that use.

As we measure what can be done, we shall promise only what we know we can produce, but as we chart our goals we shall be lifted
by our dreams.

No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. To go forward at all is to go forward together.

This means black and white together, as one nation, not two. The laws have caught up with our conscience. What remains is
to give life to what is in the law: to ensure at last that as all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal
in dignity before man.

As we learn to go forward together at home, let us also seek to go forward together with all mankind.

Let us take as our goal: where peace is unknown, make it welcome; where peace is fragile, make it strong; where peace is temporary,
make it permanent.

After a period of confrontation, we are entering an era of negotiation.

Let all nations know that during this administration our lines of communication will be open.

We seek an open world-open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods and people-a world in which no people, great or small,
will live in angry isolation.

We cannot expect to make everyone our friend, but we can try to make no one our enemy.

Those who would be our adversaries, we invite to a peaceful competition-not in conquering territory or extending dominion,
but in enriching the life of man.

As we explore the reaches of space, let us go to the new worlds together-not as new worlds to be conquered, but as a new adventure
to be shared.

With those who are willing to join, let us cooperate to reduce the burden of arms, to strengthen the structure of peace, to
lift up the poor and the hungry.

But to all those who would be tempted by weakness, let us leave no doubt that we will be as strong as we need to be for as
long as we need to be.

Over the past twenty years, since I first came to this Capital as a freshman Congressman, I have visited most of the nations
of the world.

I have come to know the leaders of the world, and the great forces, the hatreds, the fears that divide the world.

I know that peace does not come through wishing for it-that there is no substitute for days and even years of patient and
prolonged diplomacy.

I also know the people of the world.

I have seen the hunger of a homeless child, the pain of a man wounded in battle, the grief of a mother who has lost her son.
I know these have no ideology, no race.

I know America. I know the heart of America is good.

I speak from my own heart, and the heart of my country, the deep concern we have for those who suffer, and those who sorrow.

I have taken an oath today in the presence of God and my countrymen to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
To that oath I now add this sacred commitment: I shall consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon,
to the cause of peace among nations.

Let this message be heard by strong and weak alike:

The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes "with healing in its wings"; with
compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the
peoples of this earth to choose their own destiny.

Only a few short weeks ago, we shared the glory of man's first sight of the world as God sees it, as a single sphere reflecting
light in the darkness.

As the Apollo astronauts flew over the moon's gray surface on Christmas Eve, they spoke to us of the beauty of earth-and in
that voice so clear across the lunar distance, we heard them invoke God's blessing on its goodness.

In that moment, their view from the moon moved poet Archibald MacLeish to write:

"To see the earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves
as riders on the earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold-brothers who know now they are truly
brothers."

In that moment of surpassing technological triumph, men turned their thoughts toward home and humanity-seeing in that far
perspective that man's destiny on earth is not divisible; telling us that however far we reach into the cosmos, our destiny
lies not in the stars but on Earth itself, in our own hands, in our own hearts.

We have endured a long night of the American spirit. But as our eyes catch the dimness of the first rays of dawn, let us not
curse the remaining dark. Let us gather the light.

Our destiny offers, not the cup of despair, but the chalice of opportunity. So let us seize it, not in fear, but in gladness-and,
"riders on the earth together," let us go forward, firm in our faith, steadfast in our purpose, cautious of the dangers; but
sustained by our confidence in the will of God and the promise of man.

Many Democrats followed President Andrew Jackson's lead in condemning the Military Academy at West Point, New York. The reasons for the attack are revealed in the following speech delivered to the House of Representatives in 1836
by a young congressman and future president, Franklin Pierce. As a result of the agitation by Pierce and others, an investigation
was undertaken by the House in 1837 substantiating Pierce's objections. Although no sweeping reforms followed, a bill of 1838
extended from one to four years a cadet's service obligation after completing his four-year course at the Point. The army,
unwillingly, also instituted the practice (only haphazardly resorted to in the past) of recruiting officers from among civilian
applicants in 1838 and 1839; and the practice of elevating noncommissioned officers from the rank of sergeant to lieutenant
was begun in 1837 and later expanded.

An attempt was made during the last Congress to bring the subject of the reorganization of the Military Academy before the
country through a report of a committee. The same thing has been done during the present session, again and again, but all
efforts have proved alike unsuccessful! Still, you do not cease to call for appropriations; you require the people's money
for the support of the institution, while you refuse them the light necessary to enable them to judge of the propriety of
your annual requisitions.

Whether the amount proposed to be appropriated, by the bill upon your table, is too great or too small or precisely sufficient
to cover the current expenses of the institution is a matter into which I will not at present inquire; but I shall feel bound
to oppose the bill in every stage of its progress. I cannot vote a single dollar until the resolution of inquiry, presented
by my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes) at an early day in the session, shall be first taken up and disposed of. . . .

Sir, why has this investigation been resisted? Is it not an institution which has already cost this country more than $3 million
for which you propose, in this very bill, an appropriation of more than $130,000, and which, at the same time, in the estimation
of a large portion of the citizens of this Union, has failed, eminently failed, to fulfill the objects for which it was established,
of sufficient interest and importance to claim the consideration of a committee of this House and of the House itself? I should
have expected the resolution of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Hawes), merely proposing an inquiry, to pass without opposition
had I not witnessed the strong sensation, nay, excitement, that was produced here, at the last session, by the presentation
of his yet unpublished report. . . .

Sir, no man can feel more deeply interested in the Army, or entertain a higher regard for it, than myself. My earliest recollections
connect themselves fondly and gratefully with the names of the brave men who, relinquishing the quiet and security of civil
life, were staking their all upon the defense of their country's rights and honor. One of the most distinguished among that
noble band now occupies and honors a seat upon this floor. It is not fit that I should indulge in expressions of personal
respect and admiration, which I am sure would find a hearty response in the bosom of every member of this committee. I allude
to him merely to express the hope that, on some occasion, we may have, upon this subject, the benefit of his experience and
observation. And if his opinions shall differ from my own, I promise carefully to review every step by which I have been led
to my present conclusions.

You cannot mistake me, sir; I refer to the hero of Erie. I have declared myself the friend of the Army. Satisfy me, then,
what measures are best calculated to render it effective and what all desire it to be, and I go for the proposition with my
whole heart.

But I cannot believe that the Military Academy, as at present organized, is calculated to accomplish this desirable end. It
may, and undoubtedly does, send forth into the country much military knowledge; but the advantage which your Army, or that
which will constitute your Army in time of need, derives from it, is by no means commensurate with the expense you incur.

Here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to say that I deny utterly the expediency and the right to educate, at the public expense, any
number of young men who, on the completion of their education, are not to form a portion of your military force, but to return
to the walks of private life. Such was never the operation of the Military Academy, until after the law of 1812; and the doctrine,
so far as I have been able to ascertain, was first formally announced by a distinguished individual at this time sufficiently
jealous of the exercise of executive patronage, and greatly alarmed by what he conceives to be the tendencies of this government
to centralism and consolidation. It may be found in the report of the secretary of war communicated to Congress in 1819.

If it shall, upon due consideration, receive the sanction of Congress and the country, I can see no limit to the exercise
of power and government patronage. Follow out the principle, and where will it lead you? You confer upon the national government
the absolute guardianship of literature and science, military and civil; you need not stop at military science; anyone in
the wide range of science becomes at once a legitimate and constitutional object of your patronage; you are confined by no
limit but your discretion; you have no check but your own good pleasure. If you may afford instruction at the public expense
in the languages, in philosophy, in chemistry, and in the exact sciences to young gentleman who are under no obligation to
enter the service of their country, but are, in fact, destined for civil life, why may you not, by parity of reasoning, provide
the means of a legal, or theological, or medical education, on the ground that the recipients of your bounty will carry forth
a fund of useful knowledge that may, at some time, under some circumstances, produce a beneficial influence, and promote “the
general welfare.” Sir, I fear that even some of us may live to see the day when this “general welfare” of your Constitution
will leave us little ground to boast of a government of limited powers.

But I did not propose at this time to discuss the abstract question of constitutional right. I will regard the expediency
alone; and, whether the power exist or not, its exercise, in an institution like this, is subversive of the only principle
upon which a school conducted at the public expense can be made profitable to the public service--that of making an admission
into your school, and an education there, secondary to an appointment in the Army. Sir, this distinctive feature characterized
all your legislation and all executive recommendations down to 1810.

I may as well notice here, as at any time, an answer which has always been ready when objections have been raised to this
institution; an answer which, if it has not proved quite satisfactory to minds that yield their assent more readily to strong
reasons than to the authority of great names, has yet, unquestionably, exercised a powerful influence upon the public mind.
It has not gone forth upon the authority of an individual merely, but has been published to the world with the approbation
of a committee of a former Congress. It is this: that the institution has received, at different times, the sanction of such
names as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson; and this has been claimed with such boldness, and in a form so imposing, as almost
to forbid any question of its accuracy. If this were correct, in point of fact, it would be entitled to the most profound
respect and consideration, and no change should be urged against the weight of such authority, without mature deliberation
and thorough conviction of expediency. Unfortunately for the advocates of the institution, and fortunately for the interests
of the country, this claim cannot be sustained by reference to executive documents, from the first report of General Knox,
in 1790, to the close of Mr. Jefferson's administration.

The error has undoubtedly innocently occurred by confounding the Military Academy at West Point as it was with the Military
Academy at West Point as it is. The report of Secretary Knox just referred to is characterized by this distinctive feature:
that the corps proposed to be organized were “to serve as an actual defense to the community,” and to constitute a part of
the active military force of the country, “to serve in the field, or on the frontier, or in the fortifications of the seacoast,
as the commander in chief may direct.” At a later period, the report of the secretary of war (Mr. McHenry), communicated to
Congress in 1800, although it proposed a plan for military schools differing in many essential particulars from those which
had preceded it, still retained the distinctive feature just named as characterizing the report of General Knox.

With regard to educating young men gratuitously, which, whatever may have been the design, I am prepared to show is the practical
operation of the Academy as at present organized, I cannot, perhaps, exhibit more clearly the sentiments of the executive
at that early day, urgent as was the occasion, and strong as must have been the desire, to give strength and efficiency to
the military force, than by reading one or two paragraphs from a supplementary report of Secretary McHenry, addressed to the
chairman of the Committee of Defense, January 31, 1800.

The secretary says:

Agreeably to the plan of the Military Academy, the directors thereof are to be officers taken from the Army; consequently,
no expense will be incurred by such appointments. The plan also contemplates that officers of the Army, cadets, and noncommissioned
officers shall receive instruction in the Academy. As the rations and fuel which they are entitled to in the Army will suffice
for them in the Academy, no additional expense will be required for objects of maintenance while there. The expenses of servants
and certain incidental expenses relative to the police and administration may be defrayed by those who shall be admitted,
out of their pay and emoluments.

You will observe, Mr. Chairman, from the phraseology of the report that all were to constitute a part of your actual military
force; and that whatever additional charges should be incurred were to be defrayed by those who might receive the advantages
of instruction. These were provisions, just as they are important. Let me call your attention for a moment to a report of
Colonel Williams which was made the subject of a special message communicated to Congress by Mr. Jefferson, March 18, 1808.
The extract I propose to read, as sustaining fully the views of Mr. McHenry upon this point, is in the following words:

It might be well to make the plan upon such a scale as not only to take in the minor officers of the Navy, but also any youths
from any of the states who might wish for such an education, whether designed for the Army or Navy, or neither, and let them
be assessed to the value of their education, which might form a fund for extra or contingent expenses.

Sir, these are the true doctrines upon this subject; doctrines worthy of the administration under which they were promulgated,
and in accordance with the views of statesmen in the earlier and purer days of the republic. Give to the officers of your
Army the highest advantages for perfection in all the branches of military science, and let those advantages be open to all,
in rotation, and under such terms and regulations as shall be at once impartial toward the officers and advantageous to the
service; but let all young gentlemen who have a taste for military life and desire to adopt arms as a profession prepare themselves
for subordinate situations at their own expense, or at the expense of their parents or guardians, in the same manner that
the youth of the country are qualified for the professions of civil life. . . .

If the patience of the committee would warrant me, Mr. Chairman, I could show, by reference to executive communications and
the concurrent legislation of Congress in 1794, 1796, 1802, and 1808, that prior to the last-mentioned date such an institution
as we now have was neither recommended nor contemplated. Upon this point I will not detain you longer; but when hereafter
confronted by the authority of great names, I trust we shall be told where the expressions of approbation are to be found.
We may then judge of their applicability to the Military Academy as at present organized.

I am far from desiring to see this country destitute of a military academy; but I would have it a school of practice and instruction
for officers actually in the service of the United States; not an institution for educating, gratuitously, young gentlemen
who, on the completion of their term, or after a few months' leave of absence, resign their commissions and return to the
pursuits of civil life. If anyone doubts that this is the practical operation of your present system, I refer him to the annual
list of resignations to be found in the adjutant general's office.

Firmly as I am convinced of the necessity of a reorganization, I would take no step to create an unjust prejudice against
the institution. All that I ask, and, so far as I know, all that any of the opponents of the institution ask is that, after
a full and impartial investigation, it shall stand or fall upon its merits. I know there are graduates of the institution
who are ornaments to the Army and an honor to their country; but they, and not the seminary, are entitled to the credit.

Here I would remark, once for all, that I do not reflect upon the officers or pupils of the Academy; it is to the principles
of the institution itself, as at present organized, that I object. It is often said that the graduates leave the institution
with sentiments that but ill accord with the feelings and opinions of the great mass of the people of that government from
which they derive the means of education, and that many who take commissions possess few qualifications for the command of
men, either in war or in peace. Most of the members of this House have had more or less intercourse with these young gentlemen,
and I leave it for each individual to form his own opinion of the correctness of the charges. Thus much I will say for myself,
that I believe that these and greater evils are the natural if not the inevitable result of the principles in which this institution
is founded; and any system of education established upon similar principles, on government patronage alone, will produce like
results, now and forever.

Sir, what are some of these results? By the report of the secretary of war, dated January 1831, we are informed that, “by
an estimate of the last five years (preceding that date), it appears that the supply of the Army from the corps of graduated
cadets has averaged about twenty-two annually, while those who graduated are about forty, making in each year an excess of
eighteen. The number received annually into the Academy averages one hundred, of which only the number stated, to wit, forty,
pass through the prescribed course of education at school, and become supernumerary lieutenants in the Army.”

By the report of the secretary of war, December 1830, we are informed that the number of promotions to the Army from this
corps for the last five years has averaged about twenty-two annually, while the number of graduates has been at an average
of forty. This excess, which is annually increasing, has placed eighty-seven in waiting until vacancies shall take place,
and show that in the next year, probably, and in the succeeding one, certainly, there will be an excess beyond what the existing
law authorizes to be commissioned. There will then be 106 supernumerary brevet second lieutenants appurtenant to the Army,
at an average annual expense of $80,000. Sir, that results here disclosed were not anticipated by Mr. Madison is apparent
from a recurrence to his messages of 1810 and 1811.

In passing the law of 1812, both Congress and the President acted for the occasion, and they expected those who should succeed
them to act in a similar manner. Their feelings of patriotism and resentment were aroused by beholding the privileges of freemen
wantonly invaded, our glorious stars and stripes disregarded, and national and individual rights trampled in the dust. The
war was pending. The necessity for increasing the military force of the country was obvious and pressing, and the urgent occasion
for increased facilities for military instruction equally apparent. Sir, it was under circumstances like these, when we had
not only enemies abroad but, I blush to say, enemies at home that the institution, as at present organized, had its origin.
It will hardly be pretended that it was the original design of the law to augment the number of persons instructed beyond
the wants of the public service.

Well, the report of the secretary shows that for five years prior to 1831 the Academy had furnished eighteen supernumeraries
annually. A practical operation of this character has no sanction in the recommendation of Mr. Madison. The report demonstrates,
further, the fruitfulness and utility of this institution, by showing the fact that but two-fifths of those who enter the Academy graduate, and that but a fraction
more than one-fifth enter the public service.

This is not the fault of the administration of the Academy; it is not the fault of the young gentlemen who are sent there; on your present peace establishment there can be but little to stimulate them, particularly in the acquisition of
military science. There can hardly be but one object in the mind of the student, and that would be to obtain an education
for the purposes of civil life. The difficulty is that the institution has outlived both the occasion that called it into
existence and its original design.

I have before remarked that the Academy was manifestly enlarged to correspond with the Army and militia actually to be called
into service. Look, then for a moment at facts, and observe with how much wisdom, justice, and sound policy you retain the
provisions of the law of 1812. The total authorized force of 1813, after the declaration of war, was 58,254; and, in October
1814, the military establishment amounted to 62,428. By the act of March 1815, the peace establishment was limited to 10,000,
and now hardly exceeds that number. Thus you make a reduction of more than 50,000 in your actual military force to accommodate
the expenses of the government to its wants. And why do you refuse to do the same with your grand system of public education?
Why does that remain unchanged? Why not reduce it at once, at least to the actual wants of the service, and dispense with
your corps of supernumerary lieutenants?

Sir, there is, there can be, but one answer to the question, and that may be found in the war report of 1819, to which I have
before had occasion to allude. The secretary says, “The cadets who cannot be provided for in the Army will return to private
life, but in the event of a war their knowledge will not be lost to the country.” Indeed, sir, these young gentlemen, if they
could be induced to take the field, would, after a lapse of ten or fifteen years, come up from the bar, or it may be the pulpit, fresh in
military science and admirably qualified for command in the face of an enemy.

The magazine of facts to prove at the same glance the extravagance and unfruitfulness of this institution is not easily exhausted;
but I am admonished by the lateness of the hour to omit many considerations which I regard as both interesting and important.
I will only detain the committee to make a single statement, placing side by side some aggregate results. There has already
been expended upon the institution more than $3,300,000. Between 1815 and 1821, 1,318 students were admitted into the Academy;
and of all the cadets who were ever there, only 265 remained in the service at the end of 1830. Here are the expenses you
have incurred and the products you have realized.

I leave them to be balanced by the people. But for myself, believing as I do that the Academy stands forth as an anomaly among
the institutions of this country; that it is at variance with the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution under which
we live; so long as this House shall deny investigation into its principles and practical operation, I, as an individual member,
will refuse to appropriate the first dollar for its support.

When one surveys the world about him after the great storm, noting the marks of destruction and yet rejoicing in the ruggedness
of the things which withstood it, if he is an American he breathes the clarified atmosphere with a strange mingling of regret
and new hope. We have seen a world passion spend its fury, but we contemplate our Republic unshaken, and hold our civilization
secure. Liberty--liberty within the law--and civilization are inseparable, and though both were threatened we find them now
secure; and there comes to Americans the profound assurance that our representative government is the highest expression and
surest guaranty of both.

Standing in this presence, mindful of the solemnity of this occasion, feeling the emotions which no one may know until he
senses the great weight of responsibility for himself, I must utter my belief in the divine inspiration of the founding fathers.
Surely there must have been God's intent in the making of this new-world Republic. Ours is an organic law which had but one
ambiguity, and we saw that effaced in a baptism of sacrifice and blood, with union maintained, the Nation supreme, and its
concord inspiring. We have seen the world rivet its hopeful gaze on the great truths on which the founders wrought. We have
seen civil, human, and religious liberty verified and glorified. In the beginning the Old World scoffed at our experiment;
today our foundations of political and social belief stand unshaken, a precious inheritance to ourselves, an inspiring example
of freedom and civilization to all mankind. Let us express renewed and strengthened devotion, in grateful reverence for the
immortal beginning, and utter our confidence in the supreme fulfillment.

The recorded progress of our Republic, materially and spiritually, in itself proves the wisdom of the inherited policy of
noninvolvement in Old World affairs. Confident of our ability to work out our own destiny, and jealously guarding our right
to do so, we seek no part in directing the destinies of the Old World. We do not mean to be entangled. We will accept no responsibility
except as our own conscience and judgment, in each instance, may determine.

Our eyes never will be blind to a developing menace, our ears never deaf to the call of civilization. We recognize the new
order in the world, with the closer contacts which progress has wrought. We sense the call of the human heart for fellowship,
fraternity, and cooperation. We crave friendship and harbor no hate. But America, our America, the America builded on the
foundation laid by the inspired fathers, can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political
commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority.

I am sure our own people will not misunderstand, nor will the world misconstrue. We have no thought to impede the paths to
closer relationship. We wish to promote understanding. We want to do our part in making offensive warfare so hateful that
Governments and peoples who resort to it must prove the righteousness of their cause or stand as outlaws before the bar of
civilization.

We are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference, for counsel; to seek the
expressed views of world opinion; to recommend a way to approximate disarmament and relieve the crushing burdens of military
and naval establishments. We elect to participate in suggesting plans for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and would
gladly join in that expressed conscience of progress, which seeks to clarify and write the laws of international relationship,
and establish a world court for the disposition of such justiciable questions as nations are agreed to submit thereto. In
expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and
its hatred of war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but every commitment must be made in the exercise
of our national sovereignty. Since freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment
is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It
is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what
we are.

Today, better than ever before, we know the aspirations of humankind, and share them. We have come to a new realization of
our place in the world and a new appraisal of our Nation by the world. The unselfishness of these United States is a thing
proven; our devotion to peace for ourselves and for the world is well established; our concern for preserved civilization
has had its impassioned and heroic expression. There was no American failure to resist the attempted reversion of civilization;
there will be no failure today or tomorrow.

The success of our popular government rests wholly upon the correct interpretation of the deliberate, intelligent, dependable
popular will of America. In a deliberate questioning of a suggested change of national policy, where internationality was
to supersede nationality, we turned to a referendum, to the American people. There was ample discussion, and there is a public
mandate in manifest understanding.

America is ready to encourage, eager to initiate, anxious to participate in any seemly program likely to lessen the probability
of war, and promote that brotherhood of mankind which must be God's highest conception of human relationship. Because we cherish
ideals of justice and peace, because we appraise international comity and helpful relationship no less highly than any people
of the world, we aspire to a high place in the moral leadership of civilization, and we hold a maintained America, the proven
Republic, the unshaken temple of representative democracy, to be not only an inspiration and example, but the highest agency
of strengthening good will and promoting accord on both continents.

Mankind needs a world-wide benediction of understanding. It is needed among individuals, among peoples, among governments,
and it will inaugurate an era of good feeling to make the birth of a new order. In such understanding men will strive confidently
for the promotion of their better relationships and nations will promote the comities so essential to peace.

We must understand that ties of trade bind nations in closest intimacy, and none may receive except as he gives. We have not
strengthened ours in accordance with our resources or our genius, notably on our own continent, where a galaxy of Republics
reflects the glory of new-world democracy, but in the new order of finance and trade we mean to promote enlarged activities
and seek expanded confidence.

Perhaps we can make no more helpful contribution by example than prove a Republic's capacity to emerge from the wreckage of
war. While the world's embittered travail did not leave us devastated lands nor desolated cities, left no gaping wounds, no
breast with hate, it did involve us in the delirium of expenditure, in expanded currency and credits, in unbalanced industry,
in unspeakable waste, and disturbed relationships. While it uncovered our portion of hateful selfishness at home, it also
revealed the heart of America as sound and fearless, and beating in confidence unfailing.

Amid it all we have riveted the gaze of all civilization to the unselfishness and the righteousness of representative democracy,
where our freedom never has made offensive warfare, never has sought territorial aggrandizement through force, never has turned
to the arbitrament of arms until reason has been exhausted. When the Governments of the earth shall have established a freedom
like our own and shall have sanctioned the pursuit of peace as we have practiced it, I believe the last sorrow and the final
sacrifice of international warfare will have been written.

Let me speak to the maimed and wounded soldiers who are present today, and through them convey to their comrades the gratitude
of the Republic for their sacrifices in its defense. A generous country will never forget the services you rendered, and you
may hope for a policy under Government that will relieve any maimed successors from taking your places on another such occasion
as this.

Our supreme task is the resumption of our onward, normal way. Reconstruction, readjustment, restoration [--] all these must
follow. I would like to hasten them. If it will lighten the spirit and add to the resolution with which we take up the task,
let me repeat for our Nation, we shall give no people just cause to make war upon us; we hold no national prejudices; we entertain
no spirit of revenge; we do not hate; we do not covet; we dream of no conquest, nor boast of armed prowess.

If, despite this attitude, war is again forced upon us, I earnestly hope a way may be found which will unify our individual
and collective strength and consecrate all America, materially and spiritually, body and soul, to national defense. I can
vision the ideal republic, where every man and woman is called under the flag for assignment to duty for whatever service,
military or civic, the individual is best fitted; where we may call to universal service every plant, agency, or facility,
all in the sublime sacrifice for country, and not one penny of war profit shall inure to the benefit of private individual,
corporation, or combination, but all above the normal shall flow into the defense chest of the Nation. There is something
inherently wrong, something out of accord with the ideals of representative democracy, when one portion of our citizenship
turns its activities to private gain amid defensive war while another is fighting, sacrificing, or dying for national preservation.

Out of such universal service will come a new unity of spirit and purpose, a new confidence and consecration, which would
make our defense impregnable, our triumph assured. Then we should have little or no disorganization of our economic, industrial,
and commercial systems at home, no staggering war debts, no swollen fortunes to flout the sacrifices of our soldiers, no excuse
for sedition, no pitiable slackerism, no outrage of treason. Envy and jealousy would have no soil for their menacing development,
and revolution would be without the passion which engenders it.

A regret for the mistakes of yesterday must not, however, blind us to the tasks of today. War never left such an aftermath.
There has been staggering loss of life and measureless wastage of materials. Nations are still groping for return to stable
ways. Discouraging indebtedness confronts us like all the war-torn nations, and these obligations must be provided for. No
civilization can survive repudiation.

We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at war taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity,
with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by
man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature. Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the
same time do for it too little. We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid
and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so
essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future.

The business world reflects the disturbance of war's reaction. Herein flows the lifeblood of material existence. The economic
mechanism is intricate and its parts interdependent, and has suffered the shocks and jars incident to abnormal demands, credit
inflations, and price upheavals. The normal balances have been impaired, the channels of distribution have been clogged, the
relations of labor and management have been strained. We must seek the readjustment with care and courage. Our people must
give and take. Prices must reflect the receding fever of war activities. Perhaps we never shall know the old levels of wages
again, because war invariably readjusts compensations, and the necessaries of life will show their inseparable relationship,
but we must strive for normalcy to reach stability. All the penalties will not be light, nor evenly distributed. There is
no way of making them so. There is no instant step from disorder to order. We must face a condition of grim reality, charge
off our losses and start afresh. It is the oldest lesson of civilization. I would like government to do all it can to mitigate;
then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved. No altered system
will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration
of our proven system.

The forward course of the business cycle is unmistakable. Peoples are turning from destruction to production. Industry has
sensed the changed order and our own people are turning to resume their normal, onward way. The call is for productive America
to go on. I know that Congress and the Administration will favor every wise Government policy to aid the resumption and encourage
continued progress.

I speak for administrative efficiency, for lightened tax burdens, for sound commercial practices, for adequate credit facilities,
for sympathetic concern for all agricultural problems, for the omission of unnecessary interference of Government with business,
for an end to Government's experiment in business, and for more efficient business in Government administration. With all
of this must attend a mindfulness of the human side of all activities, so that social, industrial, and economic justice will
be squared with the purposes of a righteous people.

With the nation-wide induction of womanhood into our political life, we may count upon her intuitions, her refinements, her
intelligence, and her influence to exalt the social order. We count upon her exercise of the full privileges and the performance
of the duties of citizenship to speed the attainment of the highest state.

I wish for an America no less alert in guarding against dangers from within than it is watchful against enemies from without.
Our fundamental law recognizes no class, no group, no section; there must be none in legislation or administration. The supreme
inspiration is the common weal. Humanity hungers for international peace, and we crave it with all mankind. My most reverent
prayer for America is for industrial peace, with its rewards, widely and generally distributed, amid the inspirations of equal
opportunity. No one justly may deny the equality of opportunity which made us what we are. We have mistaken unpreparedness
to embrace it to be a challenge of the reality, and due concern for making all citizens fit for participation will give added
strength of citizenship and magnify our achievement.

If revolution insists upon overturning established order, let other peoples make the tragic experiment. There is no place
for it in America. When World War threatened civilization we pledged our resources and our lives to its preservation, and
when revolution threatens we unfurl the flag of law and order and renew our consecration. Ours is a constitutional freedom
where the popular will is the law supreme and minorities are sacredly protected. Our revisions, reformations, and evolutions
reflect a deliberate judgment and an orderly progress, and we mean to cure our ills, but never destroy or permit destruction
by force.

I had rather submit our industrial controversies to the conference table in advance than to a settlement table after conflict
and suffering. The earth is thirsting for the cup of good will, understanding is its fountain source. I would like to acclaim
an era of good feeling amid dependable prosperity and all the blessings which attend.

It has been proved again and again that we cannot, while throwing our markets open to the world, maintain American standards
of living and opportunity, and hold our industrial eminence in such unequal competition. There is a luring fallacy in the
theory of banished barriers of trade, but preserved American standards require our higher production costs to be reflected
in our tariffs on imports. Today, as never before, when peoples are seeking trade restoration and expansion, we must adjust
our tariffs to the new order. We seek participation in the world's exchanges, because therein lies our way to widened influence
and the triumphs of peace. We know full well we cannot sell where we do not buy, and we cannot sell successfully where we
do not carry. Opportunity is calling not alone for the restoration, but for a new era in production, transportation and trade.
We shall answer it best by meeting the demand of a surpassing home market, by promoting self-reliance in production, and by
bidding enterprise, genius, and efficiency to carry our cargoes in American bottoms to the marts of the world.

We would not have an America living within and for herself alone, but we would have her self-reliant, independent, and ever
nobler, stronger, and richer. Believing in our higher standards, reared through constitutional liberty and maintained opportunity,
we invite the world to the same heights. But pride in things wrought is no reflex of a completed task. Common welfare is the
goal of our national endeavor. Wealth is not inimical to welfare; it ought to be its friendliest agency. There never can be
equality of rewards or possessions so long as the human plan contains varied talents and differing degrees of industry and
thrift, but ours ought to be a country free from the great blotches of distressed poverty. We ought to find a way to guard
against the perils and penalties of unemployment. We want an America of homes, illumined with hope and happiness, where mothers,
freed from the necessity for long hours of toil beyond their own doors, may preside as befits the hearthstone of American
citizenship. We want the cradle of American childhood rocked under conditions so wholesome and so hopeful that no blight may
touch it in its development, and we want to provide that no selfish interest, no material necessity, no lack of opportunity
shall prevent the gaining of that education so essential to best citizenship.

There is no short cut to the making of these ideals into glad realities. The world has witnessed again and again the futility
and the mischief of ill-considered remedies for social and economic disorders. But we are mindful today as never before of
the friction of modern industrialism, and we must learn its causes and reduce its evil consequences by sober and tested methods.
Where genius has made for great possibilities, justice and happiness must be reflected in a greater common welfare.

Service is the supreme commitment of life. I would rejoice to acclaim the era of the Golden Rule and crown it with the autocracy
of service. I pledge an administration wherein all the agencies of Government are called to serve, and ever promote an understanding
of Government purely as an expression of the popular will.

One cannot stand in this presence and be unmindful of the tremendous responsibility. The world upheaval has added heavily
to our tasks. But with the realization comes the surge of high resolve, and there is reassurance in belief in the God-given
destiny of our Republic. If I felt that there is to be sole responsibility in the Executive for the America of tomorrow I
should shrink from the burden. But here are a hundred millions, with common concern and shared responsibility, answerable
to God and country. The Republic summons them to their duty, and I invite co-operation.

I accept my part with single-mindedness of purpose and humility of spirit, and implore the favor and guidance of God in His
Heaven. With these I am unafraid, and confidently face the future.

I have taken the solemn oath of office on that passage of Holy Writ wherein it is asked: "What doth the Lord require of thee
but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" This I plight to God and country.

The will of the American people, expressed through their unsolicited suffrages, calls me before you to pass through the solemnities
preparatory to taking upon myself the duties of President of the United States for another term. For their approbation of
my public conduct through a period which has not been without its difficulties, and for this renewed expression of their confidence
in my good intentions, I am at a loss for terms adequate to the expression of my gratitude. It shall be displayed to the extent
of my humble abilities in continued efforts so to administer the Government as to preserve their liberty and promote their
happiness.

So many events have occurred within the last four years which have necessarily called forth-sometimes under circumstances
the most delicate and painful-my views of the principles and policy which ought to be pursued by the General Government that
I need on this occasion but allude to a few leading considerations connected with some of them.

The foreign policy adopted by our Government soon after the formation of our present Constitution, and very generally pursued
by successive Administrations, has been crowned with almost complete success, and has elevated our character among the nations
of the earth. To do justice to all and to submit to wrong from none has been during my Administration its governing maxim,
and so happy have been its results that we are not only at peace with all the world, but have few causes of controversy, and
those of minor importance, remaining unadjusted.

In the domestic policy of this Government there are two objects which especially deserve the attention of the people and their
representatives, and which have been and will continue to be the subjects of my increasing solicitude. They are the preservation
of the rights of the several States and the integrity of the Union.

These great objects are necessarily connected, and can only be attained by an enlightened exercise of the powers of each within
its appropriate sphere in conformity with the public will constitutionally expressed. To this end it becomes the duty of all
to yield a ready and patriotic submission to the laws constitutionally enacted, and thereby promote and strengthen a proper
confidence in those institutions of the several States and of the United States which the people themselves have ordained
for their own government.

My experience in public concerns and the observation of a life somewhat advanced confirm the opinions long since imbibed by
me, that the destruction of our State governments or the annihilation of their control over the local concerns of the people
would lead directly to revolution and anarchy, and finally to despotism and military domination. In proportion, therefore,
as the General Government encroaches upon the rights of the States, in the same proportion does it impair its own power and
detract from its ability to fulfill the purposes of its creation. Solemnly impressed with these considerations, my countrymen
will ever find me ready to exercise my constitutional powers in arresting measures which may directly or indirectly encroach
upon the rights of the States or tend to consolidate all political power in the General Government. But of equal, and, indeed,
of incalculable, importance is the union of these States, and the sacred duty of all to contribute to its preservation by
a liberal support of the General Government in the exercise of its just powers. You have been wisely admonished to "accustom
yourselves to think and speak of the Union as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation
with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly
frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred
ties which now link together the various parts." Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved;
without union they never can be maintained. Divided into twenty-four, or even a smaller number, of separate communities, we
shall see our internal trade burdened with numberless restraints and exactions; communication between distant points and sections
obstructed or cut off; our sons made soldiers to deluge with blood the fields they now till in peace; the mass of our people
borne down and impoverished by taxes to support armies and navies, and military leaders at the head of their victorious legions
becoming our lawgivers and judges. The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace, plenty, and happiness, must inevitably
follow a dissolution of the Union. In supporting it, therefore, we support all that is dear to the freeman and the philanthropist.

The time at which I stand before you is full of interest. The eyes of all nations are fixed on our Republic. The event of
the existing crisis will be decisive in the opinion of mankind of the practicability of our federal system of government.
Great is the stake placed in our hands; great is the responsibility which must rest upon the people of the United States.
Let us realize the importance of the attitude in which we stand before the world. Let us exercise forbearance and firmness.
Let us extricate our country from the dangers which surround it and learn wisdom from the lessons they inculcate.

Deeply impressed with the truth of these observations, and under the obligation of that solemn oath which I am about to take,
I shall continue to exert all my faculties to maintain the just powers of the Constitution and to transmit unimpaired to posterity
the blessings of our Federal Union. At the same time, it will be my aim to inculcate by my official acts the necessity of
exercising by the General Government those powers only that are clearly delegated; to encourage simplicity and economy in
the expenditures of the Government; to raise no more money from the people than may be requisite for these objects, and in
a manner that will best promote the interests of all classes of the community and of all portions of the Union. Constantly
bearing in mind that in entering into society "individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest," it will
be my desire so to discharge my duties as to foster with our brethren in all parts of the country a spirit of liberal concession
and compromise, and, by reconciling our fellow-citizens to those partial sacrifices which they must unavoidably make for the
preservation of a greater good, to recommend our invaluable Government and Union to the confidence and affections of the American
people.

Finally, it is my most fervent prayer to that Almighty Being before whom I now stand, and who has kept us in His hands from
the infancy of our Republic to the present day, that He will so overrule all my intentions and actions and inspire the hearts
of my fellow-citizens that we may be preserved from dangers of all kinds and continue forever a united and happy people.

On April 19, 1995, a truck-bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, killed 168 people. At that time it was the worst terrorist attack in American history. Timothy McVeigh, a Gulf
War veteran turned right-wing extremist, was later convicted of planning and implementing the attack, and sentenced to death;
he was executed at a federal prison in Indiana in June 2001. President Bill Clinton spoke at a nationally televised memorial
service in Oklahoma City a few days after the attack. In the wake of the 1994 midterm elections--when Republicans gained a
majority in Congress--the Democratic President's national popularity had sunk to an all-time low. However, Clinton's emotional
meeting with the victims' families in Oklahoma City and his moving speech at the memorial service won praise throughout the
country. Following the attack, the spectre of homegrown, antigovernment extremists also cast scrutiny on the partisan rhetoric
of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and members of the Republican Congress who spoke bluntly about the dangers of a large federal
government. Gingrich's popularity began a long decline that ultimately led to his forced resignation as House Speaker in November
1998. In contrast, after the Oklahoma City speech, Clinton's popularity grew rapidly, and in 1996 he won reelection to a second
term as president. His speech is reprinted here in full.

Thank you very much. Governor Keating and Mrs. Keating, Reverend Graham, to the families of those who have been lost and wounded,
to the people of Oklahoma City who have endured so much, and the people of this wonderful State, to all of you who are here
as our fellow Americans: I am honored to be here today to represent the American people. But I have to tell you that Hillary
and I also come as parents, as husband and wife, as people who were your neighbors for some of the best years of our lives.

Today our Nation joins with you in grief. We mourn with you. We share your hope against hope that some may still survive.
We thank all those who have worked so heroically to save lives and to solve this crime, those here in Oklahoma and those who
are all across this great land and many who left their own lives to come here to work hand in hand with you.

We pledge to do all we can to help you heal the injured, to rebuild this city, and to bring to justice those who did this
evil.

This terrible sin took the lives of our American family: innocent children, in that building only because their parents were
trying to be good parents as well as good workers; citizens in the building going about their daily business; and many there
who served the rest of us, who worked to help the elderly and the disabled, who worked to support our farmers and our veterans,
who worked to enforce our laws and to protect us. Let us say clearly, they served us well, and we are grateful. But for so
many of you they were also neighbors and friends. You saw them at church or the PTA meetings, at the civic clubs, at the ball
park. You know them in ways that all the rest of America could not.

And to all the members of the families here present who have suffered loss, though we share your grief, your pain is unimaginable,
and we know that. We cannot undo it. That is God's work.

Our words seem small beside the loss you have endured. But I found a few I wanted to share today. I've received a lot of letters
in these last terrible days. One stood out because it came from a young widow and a mother of three whose own husband was
murdered with over 200 other Americans when Pan Am 103 was shot down. Here is what that woman said I should say to you today:
“The anger you feel is valid, but you must not allow yourselves to be consumed by it. The hurt you feel must not be allowed
to turn into hate but instead into the search for justice. The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives. Instead, you
must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not
die in vain.” Wise words from one who also knows.

You have lost too much, but you have not lost everything. And you have certainly not lost America, for we will stand with
you for as many tomorrows as it takes.

If ever we needed evidence of that, I could only recall the words of Governor and Mrs. Keating. If anybody thinks that Americans
are mostly mean and selfish, they ought to come to Oklahoma. If anybody thinks Americans have lost the capacity for love and
caring and courage, they ought to come to Oklahoma.

To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves
of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life.

Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will
inherit the wind. Justice will prevail.

Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand
up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us
honor life. As St. Paul admonished us, let us not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.

Yesterday Hillary and I had the privilege of speaking with some children of other Federal employees, children like those who
were lost here. And one little girl said something we will never forget. She said we should all plant a tree in memory of
the children. So this morning before we got on the plane to come here, at the White House, we planted that tree in honor of
the children of Oklahoma. It was a dogwood with its wonderful spring flower and its deep, enduring roots. It embodies the
lesson of the Psalms that the life of a good person is like a tree whose leaf does not wither.

My fellow Americans, a tree takes a long time to grow, and wounds take a long time to heal. But we must begin. Those who are
lost now belong to God. Some day we will be with them. But until that happens, their legacy must be our lives.

Thank you all, and God bless you.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, April 23, 1995.

The slave revolt on the island of Hispaniola that was led with remarkable brilliance by Toussaint L'Ouverture from 1791 until
his betrayal into French hands in 1802 was an inspiration to African slaves in other colonies. Word of Toussaint's conquest of Santo Domingo in 1801 came to the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia, in the
same year and encouraged a slave named Gabriel and his nearly 1,000 followers to attempt a similar revolt. The uprising, however,
was put down, and some 25 African Americans were executed. James Monroe, then governor of Virginia, expressed his concern in a letter to President Thomas Jefferson and
sought his advice on provisions for the remaining rebels. Jefferson replied on November 24, urging some form of colonization
for the renegades.

I had not been unmindful of your letter of June 15, covering a resolution of the House of Representatives of Virginia, and
referred to in yours of the 17th inst. The importance of the subject, and the belief that it gave us time for consideration
till the next meeting of the legislature, have induced me to defer the answer to this date. You will perceive that some circumstances
connected with the subject, and necessarily presenting themselves to view, would be improper but for yours and the legislative
ear. Their publication might have an ill effect in more than one quarter. In confidence of attention to this, I shall indulge
greater freedom in writing.

Common malefactors, I presume, make no part of the object of that resolution. Neither their numbers nor the nature of their
offenses seem to require any provisions beyond those practised heretofore and found adequate to the repression of ordinary
crimes. Conspiracy, insurgency, treason, rebellion, among that description of persons who brought on us the alarm, and on
themselves the tragedy of 1800 were doubtless within the view of everyone; but many perhaps contemplated, and one expression
of the resolution might comprehend, a much larger scope. Respect to both opinions makes it my duty to understand the resolution
in all the extent of which it is susceptible.

The idea seems to be to provide for these people by a purchase of lands; and it is asked whether such a purchase can be made
of the U.S. in their western territory? A very great extent of country, north of the Ohio, has been laid off into townships,
and is now at market, according to the provisions of the acts of Congress, with which you are acquainted. There is nothing
which would restrain the state of Virginia, either in the purchase or the application of these lands; but a purchase, by the
acre, might perhaps be a more expensive provision than the House of Representatives contemplated. Questions would also arise
whether the establishment of such a colony within our limits, and to become a part of our Union, would be desirable to the
state of Virginia itself, or to the other states--especially those who would be in its vicinity?

Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the U.S. to form a receptacle for these people? On our northern boundary, the
country not occupied by British subjects is the property of Indian nations, whose title would be to be extinguished, with
the consent of Great Britain; and the new settlers would be British subjects. It is hardly to be believed that either Great
Britain or the Indian proprietors have so disinterested a regard for us as to be willing to relieve us by receiving such a
colony themselves; and as much to be doubted whether that race of men could long exist in so rigorous a climate. On our western
and southern frontiers, Spain holds an immense country, the occupancy of which, however, is in the Indian natives, except
a few isolated spots possessed by Spanish subjects. It is very questionable, indeed, whether the Indians would sell, whether
Spain would be willing to receive these people, and nearly certain that she would not alienate the sovereignty.

The same question to ourselves would recur here also, as did in the first case: should we be willing to have such a colony
in contact with us? However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward
to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not
the southern, continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws; nor can
we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the
southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to say how far they might meet our views. But either there or
in the northern continent, should the constituted authorities of Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have
the dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance.

The West Indies offer a more probable and practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race and
color, climates congenial with their natural constitution, insulated from the other descriptions of men; nature seems to have
formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere. Whether we could obtain from
the European sovereigns of those islands leave to send thither the persons under consideration, I cannot say; but I think
it more probable than the former propositions, because of their being already inhabited more or less by the same race. The
most promising portion of them is the island of Santo Domingo, where the black are established into a sovereignty de facto and have organized themselves under regular laws and government. I should conjecture that their present ruler might be willing,
on many considerations, to receive even that description which would be exiled for acts deemed criminal by us, but meritorious,
perhaps, by him.

The possibility that these exiles might stimulate and conduct vindicative or predatory descents on our coasts, and facilitate
concert with their brethren remaining here, looks to a state of things between that island and us not probable on a contemplation
of our relative strength, and of the disproportion daily growing; and it is overweighed by the humanity of the measures proposed
and the advantages of disembarrassing ourselves of such dangerous characters. Africa would offer a last and undoubted resort,
if all others more desirable should fail us.

Whenever the legislature of Virginia shall have brought its mind to a point so that I may know exactly what to propose to
foreign authorities, I will execute their wishes with fidelity and zeal. I hope, however, they will pardon me for suggesting
a single question for their own consideration. When we contemplate the variety of countries and of sovereigns toward which
we may direct our views; the vast revolutions and changes of circumstances which are now in a course of progression; the possibilities
that arrangements now to be made, with a view to any particular plan, may, at no great distance of time, be totally deranged
by a change of sovereignty, of government, or of other circumstances, it will be for the legislature to consider whether,
after they shall have made all those general provisions which may be fixed by legislative authority, it would be reposing
too much confidence in their executive to leave the place of relegation to be decided on by them. They could accommodate their arrangements to the actual state of things in which countries or powers may be found to exist
at the day; and may prevent the effect of the law from being defeated by intervening changes. This, however, is for them to
decide. Our duty will be to respect their decision.

In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your
presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the
execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special
anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their
property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.
Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in
nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe
I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never
recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the
clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and
especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively,
is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce
the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of
crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which
the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming
Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will
be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause-as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly
written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive
slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution-to
this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause
"shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with
nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that
difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to
others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial
controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to
be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to
provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any
hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest
that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which
stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen
different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They
have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter
upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the
Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is
implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper
ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National
Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for
in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can
it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break
it, so to speak-but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed
by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles
of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and
the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation
in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a
more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than
before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances
to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United
States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability,
I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed
in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless
my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary.
I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally
defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and
to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using
of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great
and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force
obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce
the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem
it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere
shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated
will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case
and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope
of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to
do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really
love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and
its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any
possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to
are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly
written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach
to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution
has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not
our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations,
guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever
be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight
can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives
from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities.
If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing
the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they
make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority
refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence
arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion
sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent
renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign
of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of
a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism
in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do
I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they
are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government.
And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following
it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other
cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess
that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions
of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will
have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent
tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink
to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political
purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought
not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the
suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the
moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation
in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases
after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered
at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable
wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the
different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or
hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory
after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully
enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much
loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are
again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow
it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution
amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole
subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances,
favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the
convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting
them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely
such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution-which amendment,
however, I have not seen-has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic
institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart
from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional
law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the
separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to
do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him
to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the
world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations,
with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will
surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power
for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.
While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously
injure the Government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If
there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be
frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the
old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration
will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right
side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity,
and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all
our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will
not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to
destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not
break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living
heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they
will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Washington's Farewell Address was never delivered by him. It appeared first by his own arrangement in a newspaper at Philadelphia, then the seat of the
national government. Designed in part to remove him from consideration for a third term as President of the United States,
the address as published was similar to one he had prepared at the end of his first term, in 1792, when he had contemplated
retiring from office. In July 1796, he sent a copy of this earlier address to Alexander Hamilton, requesting him to write
a new one. Hamilton, who until the year before had been secretary of the treasury and the chief architect of Washington's
administration, did as he was asked, but the result, again reworked by Washington, still reflects the ideas of the retiring
President. It was printed in the American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796.

Friends and Fellow Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant,
and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that
important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice,
that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of
whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard
to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing
the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future
interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but act under . . . a full conviction that the step is
compatible with both.

The acceptance of and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform
sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped
that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return
to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last
election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed
and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled
me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible
with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the
present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of
this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed toward the organization and administration of the
government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority
of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to
diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement
is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services,
they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene,
patriotism does not forbid it. . . .

If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive
example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead,
amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently
want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts
and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected.

Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to the grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that
Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your Union and brotherly affection may be perpetual;
that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every
department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices
of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them
the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension
of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and
to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation,
and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the
more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend who can possibly have no personal
motive to bias his counsels. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former
and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify
or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar
in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of
your prosperity in every shape; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different
causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction
of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies
will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should
properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish
a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it, accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of
your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest
even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to
alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country
has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation
derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political
principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work
of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those
which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully
guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the
productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing
industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce
expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and
while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward
to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted.

The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications
by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures
at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater
consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight,
influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest,
as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from
an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined in the
united mass of means and efforts cannot fail to find greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from
external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and -- what is of inestimable value! -- they
must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring
countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce but which
opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the
necessity of those overgrown military establishments which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty and which
are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your Union ought to be considered
as a main prop of your liberty and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the
Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let
experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization
of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment.
It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union affecting all parts of our country,
while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism
of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have
been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations: Northern and Southern; Atlantic and Western; whence
designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients
of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You
cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They
tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen, in the negotiation by
the executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction
at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a
policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They
have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything
they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to
rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to
those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict between
the parts, can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances
in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of
a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of
your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation
and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy,
and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support.

Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims
of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of
government. But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people,
is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes
the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with
the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,
are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial
and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful
and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public
administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and
wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert
the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterward the very engines which have
lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you
steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit
of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of
the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character
of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of
the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to
perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management
of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect
security of liberty is indispensable.

Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is,
indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each
member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of
the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical
discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects
of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It
exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular
form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which
in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads
at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of
men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction,
more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins
of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common
and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage
and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded
jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the
channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to
keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true, and, in governments of a monarchical cast,
patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in
governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always
be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by
force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent
its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its
administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers
of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments
in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness
to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories,
and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient
and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,
let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation;
for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are
destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use
can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to
cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked -- Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition
that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds
of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with
more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon
attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the
structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly
as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare
for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only
by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars
may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of
these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate.

To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward
the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are
not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper
objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct
of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies
may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this
conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant
period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice
and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary
advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity
of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas!
is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations
and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should
be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its
interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight
causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill-will and resentment sometimes
impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national
propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient
to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes
perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into
one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate
inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is
apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and
by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray
or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances
of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base
or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such
attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford
to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public
councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of
the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided instead
of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they
actuate to see danger only on one side and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots,
who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the
applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them
as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent
controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of
her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an
efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take
such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent
nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we
may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by our justice shall counsel.

Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest,
humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. So far, I mean, as we are
now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold
the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy). I repeat it, therefore:
let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend
them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust
to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy
should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural
course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with
powers so disposed, in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government
to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but
temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly
keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion
of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the
condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.
There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which
experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong
and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running
the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive
of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party-spirit, to warn
against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism, this hope will be a full
recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22nd of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned
by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually
governed me -- uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under
all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having
taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. . .
.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With
me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions,
and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking,
the command of its own fortune.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible
of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the
Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never
cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright
zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man
who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectations
that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow
citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward,
as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Congress attempted to end bimetallism in 1853 by abolishing silver coins, but neglected to mention silver dollars in its bill,
so the country remained on a two-metal standard until a revision of the law in 1873. Advocates of a "free silver" policy --
coinage of silver to gold at a ratio of 16 to 1 -- opposed both measures and defended their position with four arguments:
that the single-standard law of 1873 had been railroaded through Congress; that silver "hard money" was the coin of the common
people; that the Panic of 1873 was brought on by the "demonetization" of silver; and that the institution of a free silver
policy would increase the supply of money and end the depression. These theories had special appeal for the poorer classes
and the economically unsophisticated, and the Democratic Party gave enough support to pass a free silver bill in the Senate
in January 1891. Most observers expected Democrat Grover Cleveland to join the silver cause, but he stated his refusal to
do so in the following letter of February 10, 1891, addressed to E. Ellery Anderson of the Reform Club of New York.

Dear Sir:

I have this afternoon received your note inviting me to attend tomorrow evening the meeting called for the purpose of voicing
the opposition of the businessmen of our city to "the free coinage of silver in the United States."

I shall not be able to attend and address the meeting as you request, but I am glad that the business interests of New York
are at last to be heard on this subject. It surely cannot be necessary for me to make a formal expression of my agreement
with those who believe that the greatest peril would be invited by the adoption of the scheme, embraced in the measure now
pending in Congress, for the unlimited coinage of silver at our mints.

If we have developed an unexpected capacity for the assimilation of a largely increased volume of this currency, and even
if we have demonstrated the usefulness of such an increase, these conditions fall far short of insuring us against disaster
if, in the present situation, we enter upon the dangerous and reckless experiment of free, unlimited, and independent silver
coinage.

In the presence of this vast assemblage of my countrymen I am about to supplement and seal by the oath which I shall take
the manifestation of the will of a great and free people. In the exercise of their power and right of self-government they
have committed to one of their fellow-citizens a supreme and sacred trust, and he here consecrates himself to their service.

This impressive ceremony adds little to the solemn sense of responsibility with which I contemplate the duty I owe to all
the people of the land. Nothing can relieve me from anxiety lest by any act of mine their interests may suffer, and nothing
is needed to strengthen my resolution to engage every faculty and effort in the promotion of their welfare.

Amid the din of party strife the people's choice was made, but its attendant circumstances have demonstrated anew the strength
and safety of a government by the people. In each succeeding year it more clearly appears that our democratic principle needs
no apology, and that in its fearless and faithful application is to be found the surest guaranty of good government.

But the best results in the operation of a government wherein every citizen has a share largely depend upon a proper limitation
of purely partisan zeal and effort and a correct appreciation of the time when the heat of the partisan should be merged in
the patriotism of the citizen.

To-day the executive branch of the Government is transferred to new keeping. But this is still the Government of all the people,
and it should be none the less an object of their affectionate solicitude. At this hour the animosities of political strife,
the bitterness of partisan defeat, and the exultation of partisan triumph should be supplanted by an ungrudging acquiescence
in the popular will and a sober, conscientious concern for the general weal. Moreover, if from this hour we cheerfully and
honestly abandon all sectional prejudice and distrust, and determine, with manly confidence in one another, to work out harmoniously
the achievements of our national destiny, we shall deserve to realize all the benefits which our happy form of government
can bestow.

On this auspicious occasion we may well renew the pledge of our devotion to the Constitution, which, launched by the founders
of the Republic and consecrated by their prayers and patriotic devotion, has for almost a century borne the hopes and the
aspirations of a great people through prosperity and peace and through the shock of foreign conflicts and the perils of domestic
strife and vicissitudes.

By the Father of his Country our Constitution was commended for adoption as "the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession."
In that same spirit it should be administered, in order to promote the lasting welfare of the country and to secure the full
measure of its priceless benefits to us and to those who will succeed to the blessings of our national life. The large variety
of diverse and competing interests subject to Federal control, persistently seeking the recognition of their claims, need
give us no fear that "the greatest good to the greatest number" will fail to be accomplished if in the halls of national legislation
that spirit of amity and mutual concession shall prevail in which the Constitution had its birth. If this involves the surrender
or postponement of private interests and the abandonment of local advantages, compensation will be found in the assurance
that the common interest is subserved and the general welfare advanced.

In the discharge of my official duty I shall endeavor to be guided by a just and unstrained construction of the Constitution,
a careful observance of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States
or to the people, and by a cautious appreciation of those functions which by the Constitution and laws have been especially
assigned to the executive branch of the Government.

But he who takes the oath today to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States only assumes the solemn
obligation which every patriotic citizen-on the farm, in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade, and everywhere-should share
with him. The Constitution which prescribes his oath, my countrymen, is yours; the Government you have chosen him to administer
for a time is yours; the suffrage which executes the will of freemen is yours; the laws and the entire scheme of our civil
rule, from the town meeting to the State capitals and the national capital, is yours. Your every voter, as surely as your
Chief Magistrate, under the same high sanction, though in a different sphere, exercises a public trust. Nor is this all. Every
citizen owes to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants and a fair and reasonable estimate
of their fidelity and usefulness. Thus is the people's will impressed upon the whole framework of our civil polity-municipal,
State, and Federal; and this is the price of our liberty and the inspiration of our faith in the Republic.

It is the duty of those serving the people in public place to closely limit public expenditures to the actual needs of the
Government economically administered, because this bounds the right of the Government to exact tribute from the earnings of
labor or the property of the citizen, and because public extravagance begets extravagance among the people. We should never
be ashamed of the simplicity and prudential economies which are best suited to the operation of a republican form of government
and most compatible with the mission of the American people. Those who are selected for a limited time to manage public affairs
are still of the people, and may do much by their example to encourage, consistently with the dignity of their official functions,
that plain way of life which among their fellow-citizens aids integrity and promotes thrift and prosperity.

The genius of our institutions, the needs of our people in their home life, and the attention which is demanded for the settlement
and development of the resources of our vast territory dictate the scrupulous avoidance of any departure from that foreign
policy commended by the history, the traditions, and the prosperity of our Republic. It is the policy of independence, favored
by our position and defended by our known love of justice and by our power. It is the policy of peace suitable to our interests.
It is the policy of neutrality, rejecting any share in foreign broils and ambitions upon other continents and repelling their
intrusion here. It is the policy of Monroe and of Washington and Jefferson-"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations; entangling alliance with none."

A due regard for the interests and prosperity of all the people demands that our finances shall be established upon such a
sound and sensible basis as shall secure the safety and confidence of business interests and make the wage of labor sure and
steady, and that our system of revenue shall be so adjusted as to relieve the people of unnecessary taxation, having a due
regard to the interests of capital invested and workingmen employed in American industries, and preventing the accumulation
of a surplus in the Treasury to tempt extravagance and waste.

Care for the property of the nation and for the needs of future settlers requires that the public domain should be protected
from purloining schemes and unlawful occupation.

The conscience of the people demands that the Indians within our boundaries shall be fairly and honestly treated as wards
of the Government and their education and civilization promoted with a view to their ultimate citizenship, and that polygamy
in the Territories, destructive of the family relation and offensive to the moral sense of the civilized world, shall be repressed.

The laws should be rigidly enforced which prohibit the immigration of a servile class to compete with American labor, with
no intention of acquiring citizenship, and bringing with them and retaining habits and customs repugnant to our civilization.

The people demand reform in the administration of the Government and the application of business principles to public affairs.
As a means to this end, civil-service reform should be in good faith enforced. Our citizens have the right to protection from
the incompetency of public employees who hold their places solely as the reward of partisan service, and from the corrupting
influence of those who promise and the vicious methods of those who expect such rewards; and those who worthily seek public
employment have the right to insist that merit and competency shall be recognized instead of party subserviency or the surrender
of honest political belief.

In the administration of a government pledged to do equal and exact justice to all men there should be no pretext for anxiety
touching the protection of the freedmen in their rights or their security in the enjoyment of their privileges under the Constitution
and its amendments. All discussion as to their fitness for the place accorded to them as American citizens is idle and unprofitable
except as it suggests the necessity for their improvement. The fact that they are citizens entitles them to all the rights
due to that relation and charges them with all its duties, obligations, and responsibilities.

These topics and the constant and ever-varying wants of an active and enterprising population may well receive the attention
and the patriotic endeavor of all who make and execute the Federal law. Our duties are practical and call for industrious
application, an intelligent perception of the claims of public office, and, above all, a firm determination, by united action,
to secure to all the people of the land the full benefits of the best form of government ever vouchsafed to man. And let us
not trust to human effort alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God, who presides over the destiny
of nations, and who has at all times been revealed in our country's history, let us invoke His aid and His blessings upon
our labors.

Science and mathematics were high on the long list of subjects that interested Jefferson, and he thus took special care in replying to a letter from
William Green Mumford, who had sought Jefferson's opinion of their importance. In the portion of his letter to Mumford of
June 18, 1799, that is reprinted here, Jefferson related the study of science to the freedom and perfectibility of the human
mind.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of May 14, in which you mention that you have finished the first six books
of Euclid, plane trigonometry, surveying, and algebra, and ask whether I think a further pursuit of that branch of science
would be useful to you. There are some propositions in the latter books of Euclid, and some of Archimedes, which are useful,
and I have no doubt you have been made acquainted with them. Trigonometry, so far as this, is most valuable to every man;
there is scarcely a day in which he will not resort to it for some of the purposes of common life.

The science of calculation also is indispensable as far as the extraction of the square and cube roots; algebra as far as
the quadratic equation and the use of logarithms is often of value in ordinary cases. But all beyond these is but a luxury;
a delicious luxury, indeed, but not to be indulged in by one who is to have a profession to follow for his subsistence. In
this light I view the conic sections, curves of the higher orders, perhaps even spherical trigonometry, algebraical operations
beyond the second dimension and fluxions.

There are other branches of science, however, worth the attention of every man: astronomy, botany, chemistry, natural philosophy,
natural history, anatomy. Not indeed to be a proficient in them but to possess their general principles and outlines, so as
that we may be able to amuse and inform ourselves further in any of them as we proceed through life and have occasion for
them. Some knowledge of them is necessary for our character as well as comfort. The general elements of astronomy and of natural
philosophy are best acquired at an academy where we can have the benefit of the instruments and apparatus usually provided
there. But the others may well be acquired from books alone as far as our purposes require. I have indulged myself in these
observations to you because the evidence cannot be unuseful to you of a person who has often had occasion to consider which
of his acquisitions in science have been really useful to him in life, and which of them have been merely a matter of luxury.

I am among those who think well of the human character generally. I consider man as formed for society and endowed by nature
with those dispositions which fit him for society. I believe also, with Condorcet, as mentioned in your letter, that his mind
is perfectible to a degree of which we cannot as yet form any conception. It is impossible for a man who takes a survey of
what is already known not to see what an immensity in every branch of science yet remains to be discovered, and that too of
articles to which our faculties seem adequate.

In geometry and calculation we know a great deal. Yet there are some desiderata. In anatomy great progress has been made,
but much is still to be acquired. In natural history we possess knowledge, but we want a great deal. In chemistry we are not
yet sure of the first elements. Our natural philosophy is in a very infantine state; perhaps for great advances in it, a further
progress in chemistry is necessary. Surgery is well advanced, but prodigiously short of what may be. The state of medicine
is worse than that of total ignorance. Could we divest ourselves of everything we suppose we know in it, we should start from
a higher ground and with fairer prospects.

From Hippocrates to Brown we have had nothing but a succession of hypothetical systems, each having its day of vogue, like
the fashions and fancies of caps and gowns, and yielding in turn to the next caprice. Yet the human frame, which is to be
the subject of suffering and torture under these learned modes, does not change. We have a few medicines, as the bark, opium,
mercury, which in a few well-defined diseases are of unquestionable virtue; but the residuary list of the materia medica,
long as it is, contains but the charlataneries of the art; and of the diseases of doubtful form, physicians have ever had
a false knowledge, worse than ignorance. Yet surely the list of unequivocal diseases and remedies is capable of enlargement;
and it is still more certain that in the other branches of science, great fields are yet to be explored to which our faculties
are equal, and that to an extent of which we cannot fix the limits.

I join you, therefore, in branding as cowardly the idea that the human mind is incapable of further advances. This is precisely
the doctrine which the present despots of the earth are inculcating and their friends here reechoing; and applying especially
to religion and politics, "that it is not probable that anything better will be discovered than what was known to our fathers."
We are to look backward, then, and not forward for the improvement of science, and to find it amidst feudal barbarians and
the fires of Spitalfields. But thank heaven the American mind is already too much opened to listen to these impostures; and
while the art of printing is left to us, science can never be retrograde; what is once acquired of real knowledge can never
be lost.

To preserve the freedom of the human mind, then, and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to
martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.
The generation which is going off the stage has deserved well of mankind for the struggles it has made, and for having arrested
that course of despotism which had overwhelmed the world for thousands and thousands of years. If there seems to be danger
that the ground they have gained will be lost again, that danger comes from the generation your contemporary.

But that the enthusiasm which characterizes youth should lift its parricide hands against freedom and science would be such
a monstrous phenomenon as I cannot place among possible things in this age and this country. Your college at least has shown
itself incapable of it; and if the youth of any other place have seemed to rally under other banners, it has been from delusions
which they will soon dissipate.

I shall be happy to hear from you from time to time, and of your progress in study, and to be useful to you in whatever is
in my power.

Source: "A Tribute to Philip May Hamer on the Completion of Ten Years as Executive Director, the National Historical Publications
Commission," New York, December 29, 1960.

For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.

In this outward and physical ceremony we attest once again to the inner and spiritual strength of our Nation. As my high school
teacher, Miss Julia Coleman, used to say: "We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles."

Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President, in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office
on the Bible my mother gave me a few years ago, opened to a timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah:

"He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and
to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our Government, and a new spirit among us all. A
President may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it.

Two centuries ago our Nation's birth was a milestone in the long quest for freedom, but the bold and brilliant dream which
excited the founders of this Nation still awaits its consummation. I have no new dream to set forth today, but rather urge
a fresh faith in the old dream.

Ours was the first society openly to define itself in terms of both spirituality and of human liberty. It is that unique self-definition
which has given us an exceptional appeal, but it also imposes on us a special obligation, to take on those moral duties which,
when assumed, seem invariably to be in our own best interests.

You have given me a great responsibility-to stay close to you, to be worthy of you, and to exemplify what you are. Let us
create together a new national spirit of unity and trust. Your strength can compensate for my weakness, and your wisdom can
help to minimize my mistakes.

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together
in the right.

The American dream endures. We must once again have full faith in our country-and in one another. I believe America can be
better. We can be even stronger than before.

Let our recent mistakes bring a resurgent commitment to the basic principles of our Nation, for we know that if we despise
our own government we have no future. We recall in special times when we have stood briefly, but magnificently, united. In
those times no prize was beyond our grasp.

But we cannot dwell upon remembered glory. We cannot afford to drift. We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an
inferior quality of life for any person. Our Government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate.

We have already found a high degree of personal liberty, and we are now struggling to enhance equality of opportunity. Our
commitment to human rights must be absolute, our laws fair, our natural beauty preserved; the powerful must not persecute
the weak, and human dignity must be enhanced.

We have learned that "more" is not necessarily "better," that even our great Nation has its recognized limits, and that we
can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems. We cannot afford to do everything, nor can we afford to lack boldness
as we meet the future. So, together, in a spirit of individual sacrifice for the common good, we must simply do our best.

Our Nation can be strong abroad only if it is strong at home. And we know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands
is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.

To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others. We will not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards
here at home, for we know that the trust which our Nation earns is essential to our strength.

The world itself is now dominated by a new spirit. Peoples more numerous and more politically aware are craving and now demanding
their place in the sun-not just for the benefit of their own physical condition, but for basic human rights.

The passion for freedom is on the rise. Tapping this new spirit, there can be no nobler nor more ambitious task for America
to undertake on this day of a new beginning than to help shape a just and peaceful world that is truly humane.

We are a strong nation, and we will maintain strength so sufficient that it need not be proven in combat-a quiet strength
based not merely on the size of an arsenal, but on the nobility of ideas.

We will be ever vigilant and never vulnerable, and we will fight our wars against poverty, ignorance, and injustice-for those
are the enemies against which our forces can be honorably marshaled.

We are a purely idealistic Nation, but let no one confuse our idealism with weakness.

Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere. Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference
for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights. We do not seek to intimidate, but
it is clear that a world which others can dominate with impunity would be inhospitable to decency and a threat to the well-being
of all people.

The world is still engaged in a massive armaments race designed to ensure continuing equivalent strength among potential adversaries.
We pledge perseverance and wisdom in our efforts to limit the world's armaments to those necessary for each nation's own domestic
safety. And we will move this year a step toward ultimate goal-the elimination of all nuclear weapons from this Earth. We
urge all other people to join us, for success can mean life instead of death.

Within us, the people of the United States, there is evident a serious and purposeful rekindling of confidence. And I join
in the hope that when my time as your President has ended, people might say this about our Nation:

-that we had remembered the words of Micah and renewed our search for humility, mercy, and justice;

-that we had torn down the barriers that separated those of different race and region and religion, and where there had been
mistrust, built unity, with a respect for diversity;

-that we had found productive work for those able to perform it;

-that we had strengthened the American family, which is the basis of our society;

-that we had ensured respect for the law, and equal treatment under the law, for the weak and the powerful, for the rich and
the poor;

-and that we had enabled our people to be proud of their own Government once again.

I would hope that the nations of the world might say that we had built a lasting peace, built not on weapons of war but on
international policies which reflect our own most precious values.

These are not just my goals, and they will not be my accomplishments, but the affirmation of our Nation's continuing moral
strength and our belief in an undiminished, ever-expanding American dream.

Andrew Johnson: Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon for the Confederate States

On May 29, 1865, President Johnson issued a proclamation of amnesty and pardon for the citizens of those Confederate states
that had not been restored under Lincoln's Reconstruction policy. Generally in accord with Lincoln's amnesty proclamation of December 8, 1863, Johnson's proclamation differed on one
major point. A lifelong supporter of small farmers and the lower classes in general, he specifically excluded the wealthy
classes from the benefits of the proclamation.

Whereas, the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December, A.D. 1863, and on the 26th day of March, A.D. 1864, did,
with the object to suppress the existing rebellion, to induce all persons to return to their loyalty, and to restore the authority
of the United States, issue proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to certain persons who had, directly or by implication,
participated in the said rebellion; and

Whereas, many persons who had so engaged in said rebellion have, since the issuance of said proclamations, failed or neglected to
take the benefits offered thereby; and

Whereas, many persons who have been justly deprived of all claim to amnesty and pardon thereunder by reason of their participation,
directly or by implication, in said rebellion and continued hostility to the government of the United States since the date
of said proclamations, now desire to apply for and obtain amnesty and pardon.

To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored and that peace, order, and freedom may
be established, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons
who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon,
with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and except in cases where legal proceedings under the laws
of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion have been instituted; but
upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath (or affirmation) and
thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate, and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation and shall
be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

I, ------ ------, do solemnly swear (or affirm), in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will in like manner abide
by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to
the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.

The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:

First, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the
pretended Confederate government.

Second, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.

Third, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel
in the army or lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.

Fifth, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States to evade duty
in resisting the rebellion.

Sixth, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United
States service as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh, all persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth, all military and naval officers in the Rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at
West Point or the United States Naval Academy.

Ninth, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of states in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the
Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eleventh, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas and
all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United
States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are
in military, naval, or civil confinement or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents
of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction.

Thirteenth, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion and the estimated value of whose taxable property
is over $20,000.

Fourteenth, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's proclamation of December 8, A.D.
1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation and who have not
thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate.

Provided, that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such
clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United
States.

The secretary of state will establish rules and regulations for administering and recording the said amnesty oath, so as to
insure its benefit to the people and guard the government against fraud.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 6, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 310-312.

No one can contemplate current conditions without finding much that is satisfying and still more that is encouraging. Our
own country is leading the world in the general readjustment to the results of the great conflict. Many of its burdens will
bear heavily upon us for years, and the secondary and indirect effects we must expect to experience for some time. But we
are beginning to comprehend more definitely what course should be pursued, what remedies ought to be applied, what actions
should be taken for our deliverance, and are clearly manifesting a determined will faithfully and conscientiously to adopt
these methods of relief. Already we have sufficiently rearranged our domestic affairs so that confidence has returned, business
has revived, and we appear to be entering an era of prosperity which is gradually reaching into every part of the Nation.
Realizing that we can not live unto ourselves alone, we have contributed of our resources and our counsel to the relief of
the suffering and the settlement of the disputes among the European nations. Because of what America is and what America has
done, a firmer courage, a higher hope, inspires the heart of all humanity.

These results have not occurred by mere chance. They have been secured by a constant and enlightened effort marked by many
sacrifices and extending over many generations. We can not continue these brilliant successes in the future, unless we continue
to learn from the past. It is necessary to keep the former experiences of our country both at home and abroad continually
before us, if we are to have any science of government. If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge
of the old foundations. We must realize that human nature is about the most constant thing in the universe and that the essentials
of human relationship do not change. We must frequently take our bearings from these fixed stars of our political firmament
if we expect to hold a true course. If we examine carefully what we have done, we can determine the more accurately what we
can do.

We stand at the opening of the one hundred and fiftieth year since our national consciousness first asserted itself by unmistakable
action with an array of force. The old sentiment of detached and dependent colonies disappeared in the new sentiment of a
united and independent Nation. Men began to discard the narrow confines of a local charter for the broader opportunities of
a national constitution. Under the eternal urge of freedom we became an independent Nation. A little less than 50 years later
that freedom and independence were reasserted in the face of all the world, and guarded, supported, and secured by the Monroe
Doctrine. The narrow fringe of States along the Atlantic seaboard advanced its frontiers across the hills and plains of an
intervening continent until it passed down the golden slope to the Pacific. We made freedom a birthright. We extended our
domain over distant islands in order to safeguard our own interests and accepted the consequent obligation to bestow justice
and liberty upon less favored peoples. In the defense of our own ideals and in the general cause of liberty we entered the
Great War. When victory had been fully secured, we withdrew to our own shores unrecompensed save in the consciousness of duty
done.

Throughout all these experiences we have enlarged our freedom, we have strengthened our independence. We have been, and propose
to be, more and more American. We believe that we can best serve our own country and most successfully discharge our obligations
to humanity by continuing to be openly and candidly, intensely and scrupulously, American. If we have any heritage, it has
been that. If we have any destiny, we have found it in that direction.

But if we wish to continue to be distinctively American, we must continue to make that term comprehensive enough to embrace
the legitimate desires of a civilized and enlightened people determined in all their relations to pursue a conscientious and
religious life. We can not permit ourselves to be narrowed and dwarfed by slogans and phrases. It is not the adjective, but
the substantive, which is of real importance. It is not the name of the action, but the result of the action, which is the
chief concern. It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement of pacifists
and militarists. The physical configuration of the earth has separated us from all of the Old World, but the common brotherhood
of man, the highest law of all our being, has united us by inseparable bonds with all humanity. Our country represents nothing
but peaceful intentions toward all the earth, but it ought not to fail to maintain such a military force as comports with
the dignity and security of a great people. It ought to be a balanced force, intensely modern, capable of defense by sea and
land, beneath the surface and in the air. But it should be so conducted that all the world may see in it, not a menace, but
an instrument of security and peace.

This Nation believes thoroughly in an honorable peace under which the rights of its citizens are to be everywhere protected.
It has never found that the necessary enjoyment of such a peace could be maintained only by a great and threatening array
of arms. In common with other nations, it is now more determined than ever to promote peace through friendliness and good
will, through mutual understandings and mutual forbearance. We have never practiced the policy of competitive armaments. We
have recently committed ourselves by covenants with the other great nations to a limitation of our sea power. As one result
of this, our Navy ranks larger, in comparison, than it ever did before. Removing the burden of expense and jealousy, which
must always accrue from a keen rivalry, is one of the most effective methods of diminishing that unreasonable hysteria and
misunderstanding which are the most potent means of fomenting war. This policy represents a new departure in the world. It is a thought, an ideal, which has led to an entirely new line of
action. It will not be easy to maintain. Some never moved from their old positions, some are constantly slipping back to the
old ways of thought and the old action of seizing a musket and relying on force. America has taken the lead in this new direction,
and that lead America must continue to hold. If we expect others to rely on our fairness and justice we must show that we
rely on their fairness and justice.

If we are to judge by past experience, there is much to be hoped for in international relations from frequent conferences and consultations. We have before us the beneficial results of the Washington conference and the
various consultations recently held upon European affairs, some of which were in response to our suggestions and in some of
which we were active participants. Even the failures can not but be accounted useful and an immeasurable advance over threatened
or actual warfare. I am strongly in favor of continuation of this policy, whenever conditions are such that there is even
a promise that practical and favorable results might be secured.

In conformity with the principle that a display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in
the intercourse among nations, we have long advocated the peaceful settlement of disputes by methods of arbitration and have
negotiated many treaties to secure that result. The same considerations should lead to our adherence to the Permanent Court
of International Justice. Where great principles are involved, where great movements are under way which promise much for
the welfare of humanity by reason of the very fact that many other nations have given such movements their actual support,
we ought not to withhold our own sanction because of any small and inessential difference, but only upon the ground of the
most important and compelling fundamental reasons. We can not barter away our independence or our sovereignty, but we ought
to engage in no refinements of logic, no sophistries, and no subterfuges, to argue away the undoubted duty of this country
by reason of the might of its numbers, the power of its resources, and its position of leadership in the world, actively and
comprehensively to signify its approval and to bear its full share of the responsibility of a candid and disinterested attempt
at the establishment of a tribunal for the administration of even-handed justice between nation and nation. The weight of
our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force but of law and trial, not by battle but by reason.

We have never any wish to interfere in the political conditions of any other countries. Especially are we determined not to
become implicated in the political controversies of the Old World. With a great deal of hesitation, we have responded to appeals
for help to maintain order, protect life and property, and establish responsible government in some of the small countries
of the Western Hemisphere. Our private citizens have advanced large sums of money to assist in the necessary financing and
relief of the Old World. We have not failed, nor shall we fail to respond, whenever necessary to mitigate human suffering
and assist in the rehabilitation of distressed nations. These, too, are requirements which must be met by reason of our vast
powers and the place we hold in the world.

Some of the best thought of mankind has long been seeking for a formula for permanent peace. Undoubtedly the clarification
of the principles of international law would be helpful, and the efforts of scholars to prepare such a work for adoption by
the various nations should have our sympathy and support. Much may be hoped for from the earnest studies of those who advocate
the outlawing of aggressive war. But all these plans and preparations, these treaties and covenants, will not of themselves
be adequate. One of the greatest dangers to peace lies in the economic pressure to which people find themselves subjected.
One of the most practical things to be done in the world is to seek arrangements under which such pressure may be removed,
so that opportunity may be renewed and hope may be revived. There must be some assurance that effort and endeavor will be
followed by success and prosperity. In the making and financing of such adjustments there is not only an opportunity, but
a real duty, for America to respond with her counsel and her resources. Conditions must be provided under which people can
make a living and work out of their difficulties. But there is another element, more important than all, without which there
can not be the slightest hope of a permanent peace. That element lies in the heart of humanity. Unless the desire for peace
be cherished there, unless this fundamental and only natural source of brotherly love be cultivated to its highest degree,
all artificial efforts will be in vain. Peace will come when there is realization that only under a reign of law, based on
righteousness and supported by the religious conviction of the brotherhood of man, can there be any hope of a complete and
satisfying life. Parchment will fail, the sword will fail, it is only the spiritual nature of man that can be triumphant.

It seems altogether probable that we can contribute most to these important objects by maintaining our position of political
detachment and independence. We are not identified with any Old World interests. This position should be made more and more
clear in our relations with all foreign countries. We are at peace with all of them. Our program is never to oppress, but
always to assist. But while we do justice to others, we must require that justice be done to us. With us a treaty of peace
means peace, and a treaty of amity means amity. We have made great contributions to the settlement of contentious differences
in both Europe and Asia. But there is a very definite point beyond which we can not go. We can only help those who help themselves.
Mindful of these limitations, the one great duty that stands out requires us to use our enormous powers to trim the balance
of the world.

While we can look with a great deal of pleasure upon what we have done abroad, we must remember that our continued success
in that direction depends upon what we do at home. Since its very outset, it has been found necessary to conduct our Government
by means of political parties. That system would not have survived from generation to generation if it had not been fundamentally sound and provided the
best instrumentalities for the most complete expression of the popular will. It is not necessary to claim that it has always
worked perfectly. It is enough to know that nothing better has been devised. No one would deny that there should be full and
free expression and an opportunity for independence of action within the party. There is no salvation in a narrow and bigoted
partisanship. But if there is to be responsible party government, the party label must be something more than a mere device
for securing office. Unless those who are elected under the same party designation are willing to assume sufficient responsibility
and exhibit sufficient loyalty and coherence, so that they can cooperate with each other in the support of the broad general
principles, of the party platform, the election is merely a mockery, no decision is made at the polls, and there is no representation
of the popular will. Common honesty and good faith with the people who support a party at the polls require that party, when
it enters office, to assume the control of that portion of the Government to which it has been elected. Any other course is
bad faith and a violation of the party pledges.

When the country has bestowed its confidence upon a party by making it a majority in the Congress, it has a right to expect
such unity of action as will make the party majority an effective instrument of government. This Administration has come into
power with a very clear and definite mandate from the people. The expression of the popular will in favor of maintaining our
constitutional guarantees was overwhelming and decisive. There was a manifestation of such faith in the integrity of the courts
that we can consider that issue rejected for some time to come. Likewise, the policy of public ownership of railroads and
certain electric utilities met with unmistakable defeat. The people declared that they wanted their rights to have not a political
but a judicial determination, and their independence and freedom continued and supported by having the ownership and control
of their property, not in the Government, but in their own hands. As they always do when they have a fair chance, the people
demonstrated that they are sound and are determined to have a sound government.

When we turn from what was rejected to inquire what was accepted, the policy that stands out with the greatest clearness is
that of economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation. The principle involved in this effort is that
of conservation. The resources of this country are almost beyond computation. No mind can comprehend them. But the cost of
our combined governments is likewise almost beyond definition. Not only those who are now making their tax returns, but those
who meet the enhanced cost of existence in their monthly bills, know by hard experience what this great burden is and what
it does. No matter what others may want, these people want a drastic economy. They are opposed to waste. They know that extravagance
lengthens the hours and diminishes the rewards of their labor. I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money,
but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government.
Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently
save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form.

If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the
people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy.
Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer
need wartime revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt
contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong
to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country
belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need
to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required
to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the
action of their own representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do
not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.

The time is arriving when we can have further tax reduction, when, unless we wish to hamper the people in their right to earn
a living, we must have tax reform. The method of raising revenue ought not to impede the transaction of business; it ought
to encourage it. I am opposed to extremely high rates, because they produce little or no revenue, because they are bad for
the country, and, finally, because they are wrong. We can not finance the country, we can not improve social conditions, through
any system of injustice, even if we attempt to inflict it upon the rich. Those who suffer the most harm will be the poor.
This country believes in prosperity. It is absurd to suppose that it is envious of those who are already prosperous. The wise
and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured
success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful. The verdict of the country
has been given on this question. That verdict stands. We shall do well to heed it.

These questions involve moral issues. We need not concern ourselves much about the rights of property if we will faithfully
observe the rights of persons. Under our institutions their rights are supreme. It is not property but the right to hold property,
both great and small, which our Constitution guarantees. All owners of property are charged with a service. These rights and
duties have been revealed, through the conscience of society, to have a divine sanction. The very stability of our society
rests upon production and conservation. For individuals or for governments to waste and squander their resources is to deny
these rights and disregard these obligations. The result of economic dissipation to a nation is always moral decay.

These policies of better international understandings, greater economy, and lower taxes have contributed largely to peaceful
and prosperous industrial relations. Under the helpful influences of restrictive immigration and a protective tariff, employment
is plentiful, the rate of pay is high, and wage earners are in a state of contentment seldom before seen. Our transportation
systems have been gradually recovering and have been able to meet all the requirements of the service. Agriculture has been
very slow in reviving, but the price of cereals at last indicates that the day of its deliverance is at hand.

We are not without our problems, but our most important problem is not to secure new advantages but to maintain those which
we already possess. Our system of government made up of three separate and independent departments, our divided sovereignty
composed of Nation and State, the matchless wisdom that is enshrined in our Constitution, all these need constant effort and
tireless vigilance for their protection and support.

In a republic the first rule for the guidance of the citizen is obedience to law. Under a despotism the law may be imposed upon the subject.
He has no voice in its making, no influence in its administration, it does not represent him. Under a free government the
citizen makes his own laws, chooses his own administrators, which do represent him. Those who want their rights respected
under the Constitution and the law ought to set the example themselves of observing the Constitution and the law. While there
may be those of high intelligence who violate the law at times, the barbarian and the defective always violate it. Those who
disregard the rules of society are not exhibiting a superior intelligence, are not promoting freedom and independence, are
not following the path of civilization, but are displaying the traits of ignorance, of servitude, of savagery, and treading
the way that leads back to the jungle.

The essence of a republic is representative government. Our Congress represents the people and the States. In all legislative
affairs it is the natural collaborator with the President. In spite of all the criticism which often falls to its lot, I do
not hesitate to say that there is no more independent and effective legislative body in the world. It is, and should be, jealous
of its prerogative. I welcome its cooperation, and expect to share with it not only the responsibility, but the credit, for
our common effort to secure beneficial legislation.

These are some of the principles which America represents. We have not by any means put them fully into practice, but we have
strongly signified our belief in them. The encouraging feature of our country is not that it has reached its destination,
but that it has overwhelmingly expressed its determination to proceed in the right direction. It is true that we could, with
profit, be less sectional and more national in our thought. It would be well if we could replace much that is only a false
and ignorant prejudice with a true and enlightened pride of race. But the last election showed that appeals to class and nationality
had little effect. We were all found loyal to a common citizenship. The fundamental precept of liberty is toleration. We can
not permit any inquisition either within or without the law or apply any religious test to the holding of office. The mind
of America must be forever free.

It is in such contemplations, my fellow countrymen, which are not exhaustive but only representative, that I find ample warrant
for satisfaction and encouragement. We should not let the much that is to do obscure the much which has been done. The past
and present show faith and hope and courage fully justified. Here stands our country, an example of tranquillity at home,
a patron of tranquillity abroad. Here stands its Government, aware of its might but obedient to its conscience. Here it will
continue to stand, seeking peace and prosperity, solicitous for the welfare of the wage earner, promoting enterprise, developing
waterways and natural resources, attentive to the intuitive counsel of womanhood, encouraging education, desiring the advancement
of religion, supporting the cause of justice and honor among the nations. America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and
force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed,
not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human,
but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God.

Thomas Jefferson, whose election to the presidency had been hailed as the "revolution of 1800," was constantly denounced during
his two administrations (1801-1809) by the Federalist press. He was accused of everything from atheism to a desire to make
America a French satellite. His consequent dim view of the press, which he retained to the end of his life, is expressed in
this letter to John Norvell, dated June 14, 1807.

Your letter of May 9 has been duly received. The subject it proposes would require time and space for even moderate development.
My occupations limit me to a very short notice of them. I think there does not exist a good elementary work on the organization
of society into civil government. I mean a work which presents in one full and comprehensive view the system of principles
on which such an organization should be founded, according to the rights of nature. For want of a single work of that character,
I should recommend Locke on Government, Sidney, Priestley's Essay on the First Principles of Government, Chipman's Principles of Government, The Federalist. Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on crimes and punishments because of the demonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch
of the subject. If your views of political inquiry go further, to the subjects of money and commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say's Political Economy can be had, which treats the same subject on the same principles, but in a shorter compass and more lucid manner. But I believe
this work has not been translated into our language.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is. But as we have employed some of the best materials of the British
constitution in the construction of our own government, a knowledge of British history becomes useful to the American politician.
There is, however, no general history of that country which can be recommended. The elegant one of Hume seems intended to
disguise and discredit the good principles of the government and is so plausible and pleasing in its style and manner as to
instill its errors and heresies insensibly into the minds of unwary readers. Baxter has performed a good operation on it.
He has taken the text of Hume as his groundwork, abridging it by the omission of some details of little interest, and wherever
he has found him endeavoring to mislead, by either the suppression of a truth or by giving it a false coloring, he has changed
the text to what it should be, so that we may properly call it Hume's history republicanized. He has, moreover, continued
the history (but indifferently) from where Hume left it, to the year 1800. The work is not popular in England because it is
republican; and but a few copies have ever reached America. It is a single quarto volume. Adding to this Ludlow's Memoirs, Mrs. Macauley's and Belknap's histories, a sufficient view will be presented of the free principles of the English constitution.

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer,
"by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy
truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned
prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being
put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations
to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of
my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing
in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period
of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed
be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected
a great portion of Europe to his will, etc., but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into
a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind
is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the first,
Truths; the second, Probabilities; the third, Possibilities; the fourth, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it
would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his
own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment
should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should
be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Such an editor, too, would have to set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on
slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch
that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these
abominations still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation which should
fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves.
It seems to escape them that it is not he who prints but he who pays for printing a slander who is its real author.

These thoughts on the subjects of your letter are hazarded at your request. Repeated instances of the publication of what
has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into
meanings imagined by their own wickedness only, justify my expressing a solicitude that this hasty communication may in nowise
be permitted to find its way into the public papers. Not fearing these political bulldogs, I yet avoid putting myself in the
way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteer away that portion of tranquillity which a firm execution of my duties
will permit me to enjoy.

The speech by Abraham Lincoln to the Republican State Convention at Springfield, Illinois, on June 16, 1858, launched his
campaign for the U.S. Senate seat held by Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas replied less than a month later at Chicago, after which the two men sparred in their famous series of debates. Lincoln's
speech was considered radical at the time and potentially dangerous. His former law partner, William H. Herndon, predicted,
however, that the Republicans would eventually make him President. The challenge of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech was met
by Douglas in his July 9 Chicago address, which began his campaign for reelection. Douglas was committed to the idea of "popular
sovereignty" in opposition to the Republicans, who wished to exclude slavery from the territories. He also had to satisfy the Southern wing in his own Democratic Party, which wanted unlimited extension
of slavery.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are
now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to
slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot
stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved;
I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful
in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak
-- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is
adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and trace, if he can, or rather
fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national
territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional
prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give
chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter
sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful
basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom,
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States.

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But,"
said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery."
"Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a Negro's freedom, by reason of
his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition,
and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the district of Missouri;
and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The Negro's name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case
came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.
Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill
to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter
answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained.
The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly 400,000 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly
reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon
the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but
ordered a reargument.

The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address,
fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott
decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman
letter to endorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been
entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the
latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other
than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the principle for which he declares he has
suffered so much and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If he has any parental feeling,
well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.

Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding;
like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election and then
was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing
of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point -- the right of a people to make their own constitution
-- upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not" policy, constitute the piece
of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any state
in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the Negro,
in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Second, that, "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude
slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with
slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all
the future.

Third, that whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the United
States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the Negro may be forced into
by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed
by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with
Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois
or in any other free state.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold
public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly
where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated.
Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left
"perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see.
Plainly enough, now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect
freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough, now, the adoption of it would
have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a senator's individual opinion
withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough, now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly
free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the endorsement? Why
the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like
the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him when it is dreaded that he may give the rider
a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers,
different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen,
Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame
of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces
exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single
piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in -- in such a case,
we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning,
and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

California and Mexico

On December 7, 1847, in his third annual message to Congress, which is reprinted here in part, President James K. Polk reiterated the minimal territorial objectives for which the United States had originally gone to war with Mexico. New Mexico and the Californias (divided into upper and lower at that time), as Polk had instructed special envoy Nicholas
Trist in June to insist upon, were the only bases for an honourable peace. Trist, however, failed to negotiate a treaty and
was recalled to the United States in October. By the time Polk was addressing Congress, sentiment in favor of annexing all
of Mexico had increased, partly because the Mexicans had refused Trist's terms but also because of the ease with which the
army had overrun Mexico. Had another envoy been sent at this time, it is likely that he would have gone demanding additional
territory, but Trist refused to resign, stayed on in Mexico as an unauthorized agent, and in February 1848 negotiated a treaty
that conformed to his original instructions. Polk was reluctant to change the treaty once he had it in hand, and on May 30
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was ratified. Trist, however, was repudiated and Polk refused to pay his salary and expenses.

A state of war abrogates treaties previously existing between the belligerents, and a treaty of peace puts an end to all claims
for indemnity for tortious acts committed under the authority of one government against the citizens or subjects of another,
unless they are provided for in its stipulations. A treaty of peace which would terminate the existing war without providing
for indemnity would enable Mexico, the acknowledged debtor and herself the aggressor in the war, to relieve herself from her
just liabilities. By such a treaty our citizens who hold just demands against her would have no remedy either against Mexico
or their own government. Our duty to these citizens must forever prevent such a peace, and no treaty which does not provide
ample means of discharging these demands can receive my sanction.

A treaty of peace should settle all existing differences between the two countries. If an adequate cession of territory should
be made by such a treaty, the United States should release Mexico from all her liabilities and assume their payment to our
own citizens. If instead of this the United States were to consent to a treaty by which Mexico should again engage to pay
the heavy amount of indebtedness which a just indemnity to our government and our citizens would impose on her, it is notorious
that she does not possess the means to meet such an undertaking. From such a treaty no result could be anticipated but the
same irritating disappointments which have heretofore attended the violations of similar treaty stipulations on the part of
Mexico. Such a treaty would be but a temporary cessation of hostilities, without the restoration of the friendship and good
understanding which should characterize the future intercourse between the two countries.

That Congress contemplated the acquisition of territorial indemnity when that body made provision for the prosecution of the
war is obvious. Congress could not have meant, when in May 1846, they appropriated $10 million and authorized the President
to employ the militia and naval and military forces of the United States and to accept the services of 50,000 volunteers to
enable him to prosecute the war, and when, at their last session, and after our Army had invaded Mexico, they made additional
appropriations and authorized the raising of additional troops for the same purpose, that no indemnity was to be obtained
from Mexico at the conclusion of the war; and yet it was certain that if no Mexican territory was acquired, no indemnity could
be obtained.

It is further manifest that Congress contemplated territorial indemnity from the fact that at their last session an act was
passed, upon the executive recommendation, appropriating $3 million with that express object. This appropriation was made
"to enable the President to conclude a treaty of peace, limits, and boundaries with the Republic of Mexico, to be used by
him in the event that said treaty, when signed by the authorized agents of the two governments and duly ratified by Mexico,
shall call for the expenditure of the same or any part thereof." The object of asking this appropriation was distinctly stated
in the several messages on the subject which I communicated to Congress. Similar appropriations made in 1803 and 1806, which
were referred to, were intended to be applied in part consideration for the cession of Louisiana and the Floridas.

In like manner it was anticipated that in settling the terms of a treaty of "limits and boundaries" with Mexico a cession
of territory estimated to be of greater value than the amount of our demands against her might be obtained, and that the prompt
payment of this sum in part consideration for the territory ceded, on the conclusion of a treaty and its ratification on her
part, might be an inducement with her to make such a cession of territory as would be satisfactory to the United States; and
although the failure to conclude such a treaty has rendered it unnecessary to use any part of the $3 million appropriated
by that act, and the entire sum remains in the treasury, it is still applicable to that object should the contingency occur
making such application proper.

The doctrine of no territory is the doctrine of no indemnity, and if sanctioned would be a public acknowledgment that our
country was wrong and that the war declared by Congress with extraordinary unanimity was unjust and should be abandoned —
an admission unfounded in fact and degrading to the national character.

The terms of the treaty proposed by the United States were not only just to Mexico but, considering the character and amount
of our claims, the unjustifiable and unprovoked commencement of hostilities by her, the expenses of the war to which we have
been subjected, and the success which had attended our arms, were deemed to be of a most liberal character.

The commissioner of the United States was authorized to agree to the establishment of the Rio Grande as the boundary from
its entrance into the Gulf, to its intersection with the southern boundary of New Mexico, in north latitude about 32°, and
to obtain a cession to the United States of the provinces of New Mexico and the Californias and the privilege of the right
of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The boundary of the Rio Grande and the cession to the United States of New Mexico
and Upper California constituted an ultimatum which our commissioner was under no circumstances to yield.

That it might be manifest, not only to Mexico but to all other nations, that the United States were not disposed to take advantage
of a feeble power by insisting upon wresting from her all the other provinces, including many of her principal towns and cities
which we had conquered and held in our military occupation, but were willing to conclude a treaty in a spirit of liberality,
our commissioner was authorized to stipulate for the restoration to Mexico of all our other conquests.

As the territory to be acquired by the boundary proposed might be estimated to be of greater value than a fair equivalent
for our just demands, our commissioner was authorized to stipulate for the payment of such additional pecuniary consideration
as was deemed reasonable.

The terms of a treaty proposed by the Mexican commissioners were wholly inadmissible. They negotiated as if Mexico were the
victorious, and not the vanquished party. They must have known that their ultimatum could never be accepted. It required the
United States to dismember Texas by surrendering to Mexico that part of the territory of that state lying between the Nueces
and the Rio Grande, included within her limits by her laws when she was an independent republic, and when she was annexed
to the United States and admitted by Congress as one of the states of our Union.

It contained no provision for the payment by Mexico of the just claims of our citizens. It required indemnity to Mexican citizens
for injuries they may have sustained by our troops in the prosecution of the war. It demanded the right for Mexico to levy
and collect the Mexican tariff of duties on goods imported into her ports while in our military occupation during the war,
and the owners of which had paid to officers of the United States the military contributions which had been levied upon them;
and it offered to cede to the United States, for a pecuniary consideration, that part of Upper California lying north of latitude
37°. Such were the unreasonable terms proposed by the Mexican commissioners.

The cession to the United States by Mexico of the provinces of New Mexico and the Californias, as proposed by the commissioner
of the United States, it was believed would be more in accordance with the convenience and interests of both nations than
any other cession of territory which it was probable Mexico could be induced to make.

It is manifest to all who have observed the actual condition of the Mexican government, for some years past and at present,
that if these provinces should be retained by her she could not long continue to hold and govern them. Mexico is too feeble
a power to govern these provinces, lying as they do at a distance of more than 1,000 miles from her capital; and if attempted
to be retained by her they would constitute but for a short time even nominally a part of her dominions. This would be especially
the case with Upper California.

The sagacity of powerful European nations has long since directed their attention to the commercial importance of that province,
and there can be little doubt that the moment the United States shall relinquish their present occupation of it and their
claim to it as indemnity, an effort would be made by some foreign power to possess it, either by conquest or by purchase.
If no foreign government should acquire it in either of these modes, an independent revolutionary government would probably
be established by the inhabitants and such foreigners as may remain in or remove to the country as soon as it shall be known
that the United States have abandoned it. Such a government would be too feeble long to maintain its separate independent
existence, and would finally become annexed to or be a dependent colony of some more powerful state.

Should any foreign government attempt to possess it as a colony, or otherwise to incorporate it with itself — the principle
avowed by President Monroe in 1824 and reaffirmed in my first annual message — that no foreign power shall with our consent
be permitted to plant or establish any new colony or dominion on any part of the North American continent must be maintained.
In maintaining this principle and in resisting its invasion by any foreign power, we might be involved in other wars more
expensive and more difficult than that in which we are now engaged.

The provinces of New Mexico and the Californias are contiguous to the territories of the United States, and if brought under
the government of our laws their resources — mineral, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial — would soon be developed.

Upper California is bounded on the north by our Oregon possessions, and if held by the United States would soon be settled
by a hardy, enterprising, and intelligent portion of our population. The bay of San Francisco and other harbors along the
Californian coast would afford shelter for our Navy, for our numerous whale ships, and other merchant vessels employed in
the Pacific Ocean, and would in a short period become the marts of an extensive and profitable commerce with China and other
countries of the East.

These advantages, in which the whole commercial world would participate, would at once be secured to the United States by
the cession of this territory; while it is certain that as long as it remains a part of the Mexican dominions they can be
enjoyed neither by Mexico herself nor by any other nation.…

In proposing to acquire New Mexico and the Californias, it was known that but an inconsiderable portion of the Mexican people
would be transferred with them, the country embraced within these provinces being chiefly an uninhabited region.

These were the leading considerations which induced me to authorize the terms of peace which were proposed to Mexico. They
were rejected, and negotiations being at an end, hostilities were renewed. An assault was made by our gallant Army upon the
strongly fortified places near the gates of the city of Mexico and upon the city itself, and after several days of severe
conflict the Mexican forces, vastly superior in number to our own, were driven from the city, and it was occupied by our troops.

Immediately after information was received of the unfavorable result of the negotiations, believing that his continued presence
with the Army could be productive of no good, I determined to recall our commissioner. A dispatch to this effect was transmitted
to him on the 6th of October last. The Mexican government will be informed of his recall, and that in the existing state of
things I shall not deem it proper to make any further overtures of peace, but shall be at all times ready to receive and consider
any proposals which may be made by Mexico.

Since the liberal proposition of the United States was authorized to be made, in April last, large expenditures have been
incurred and the precious blood of many of our patriotic fellow citizens has been shed in the prosecution of the war. This
consideration and the obstinate perseverance of Mexico in protracting the war must influence the terms of peace which it may
be deemed proper hereafter to accept.

Our arms having been everywhere victorious, having subjected to our military occupation a large portion of the enemy's country,
including his capital; and negotiations for peace having failed, the important questions arise, in what manner the war ought
to be prosecuted and what should be our future policy. I cannot doubt that we should secure and render available the conquests
which we have already made, and that with this view we should hold and occupy by our naval and military forces all the ports,
towns, cities, and provinces now in our occupation or which may hereafter fall into our possession; that we should press forward
our military operations and levy such military contributions on the enemy as may, as far as practicable, defray the future
expenses of the war.

Had the government of Mexico acceded to the equitable and liberal terms proposed, that mode of adjustment would have been
preferred. Mexico having declined to do this and failed to offer any other terms which could be accepted by the United States,
the national honor, no less than the public interests, requires that the war should be prosecuted with increased energy and
power until a just and satisfactory peace can be obtained. In the meantime, as Mexico refuses all indemnity, we should adopt
measures to indemnify ourselves by appropriating permanently a portion of her territory.

Early after the commencement of the war, New Mexico and the Californias were taken possession of by our forces. Our military
and naval commanders were ordered to conquer and hold them, subject to be disposed of by a treaty of peace. These provinces
are now in our undisputed occupation, and have been so for many months, all resistance on the part of Mexico having ceased
within their limits. I am satisfied that they should never be surrendered to Mexico. Should Congress concur with me in this
opinion, and that they should be retained by the United States as indemnity, I can perceive no good reason why the civil jurisdiction
and laws of the United States should not at once be extended over them.

To wait for a treaty of peace such as we are willing to make, by which our relations toward them would not be changed, cannot
be good policy; while our own interest and that of the people inhabiting them require that a stable, responsible, and free
government under our authority should as soon as possible be established over them. Should Congress, therefore, determine
to hold these provinces permanently, and that they shall hereafter be considered as constituent parts of our country, the
early establishment of territorial governments over them will be important for the more perfect protection of persons and
property; and I recommend that such territorial governments be established. It will promote peace and tranquillity among the
inhabitants, by allaying all apprehension that they may still entertain of being again subjected to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
I invite the early and favorable consideration of Congress to this important subject.

General Taylor never surrenders.Thomas L. Crittenden, reply, on behalf of General Zachary Taylor, at the Battle of Buena Vista, Feb. 22, 1847, when summoned
to surrender by General Santa Anna.The phrase became the slogan of the presidential campaign of 1848, when Taylor was elected.

John Adams's astute comments on the origin and growth of political parties were prompted by a pamphlet, Crisis, which had been sent to him by its author, William Keteltas. Adams, who had followed Washington in the presidency, had been
out of office for 11 years when he wrote this letter to Keteltas on November 25, 1812.

I have received your polite letter of the 6th of the month and your present of the Crisis. You will excuse a question or two. In page first, you say, "Our administrations, with the exception of Washington's, have
been party administrations." On what ground do you except Washington's? If by party you mean majority, his majority was the
smallest of the four in all his legislative and executive acts, though not in his election.

You say, "our divisions began with Federalism and anti-Federalism." Alas! they began with human nature; they have existed
in America from its first plantation. In every colony, divisions always prevailed. In New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts,
and all the rest, a court and country party have always contended. Whig and Tory disputed very sharply before the Revolution,
and in every step during the Revolution. Every measure of Congress, from 1774 to 1787, inclusively, was disputed with acrimony,
and decided by as small majorities as any question is decided in these days. We lost Canada then, as we are like to lose it
now, by a similar opposition. Away, then, with your false, though popular, distinctions in favor of Washington.

In page eleventh, you recommend a "constitutional rotation, to destroy the snake in the grass"; but the snake will elude your
snare. Suppose your president in rotation is to be chosen for Rhode Island. There will be a Federal and a Republican candidate
in that state. Every Federalist in the nation will vote for the former, and every Republican for the latter. The light troops
on both sides will skirmish; the same Northern and Southern distinctions will still prevail; the same running and riding;
the same railing and reviling; the same lying and libeling, cursing and swearing will still continue. The same caucusing,
assemblaging, and conventioning.

In the same page eleventh, you speak of a "portion of our own people who palsy the arm of the nation." There is too much truth
in this. When I was exerting every nerve to vindicate the honor, and demand a redress of the wrongs, of the nation against
the tyranny of France, the arm of the nation was palsied by one party. Now, Mr. Madison is acting the same part, for the same
ends, against Great Britain, the arm of the nation is palsied by the opposite party. And so it will always be while we feel
like colonists, dependent for protection on France or England; while we have so little national public opinion, so little
national principle, national feeling, national patriotism; while we have no sentiment of our own strength, power, and resources.

Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, Charles Francis Adams, ed., 1850-1856, 10 vols.

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend
clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom-symbolizing an end, as well
as a beginning-signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our
forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all
forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the
belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to
friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war,
disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing
of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around
the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge-and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there
is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do-for we dare not meet a powerful
challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not
have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our
view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom-and to remember that, in the past, those
who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best
efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required-not because the Communists may be doing it, not because
we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few
who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-in a new
alliance for progress-to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution
of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression
or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of
its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war
have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support-to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for
invective-to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak-and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin
anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental
self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that
they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course-both sides overburdened by the
cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain
balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew-remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to
proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms-and bring
the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the
deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah-to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the
oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not
a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this
Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country
was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young
Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled
we are-but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"-a
struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful
life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum
danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility-I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with
any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our
country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice
which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth
to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Westward expansion brought the United States into contact with numerous Indian tribes, and the admission of new states brought certain Indian lands within the national boundaries. In the following message
to Congress of December 6, 1830, President Andrew Jackson inaugurated the policy of extinguishing all Indian title to such
lands and removing Native Americans to an area beyond the Mississippi River. The president asserted that such a policy would
avoid a “collision” between federal authority over Native Americans and state jurisdiction of their lands, and that it would
open to “dense and civilized population” areas previously occupied by only “a few savage hunters.” The policy was upheld by
the Supreme Court in the case of Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, but, when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Indians retained certain rights in their own lands, Jackson is said to have retorted, “John Marshall has made his
decision, now let him enforce it.”

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty
years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two
important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that
their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual states, and to the Indians themselves.
The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible
danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians. It will place
a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory
between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen
the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will
relieve the whole state of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those states to advance
rapidly in population, wealth, and power.

It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable
them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which
is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence
of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences,
some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their
last session an object of much solicitude.

Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting
to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them
my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the general government in relation to the state authorities. For the
justice of the laws passed by the states within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this government.
As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a government we have as little right to control
them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.

With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail
themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River.
Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties,
they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests
to submitting to the laws of the states in which they now reside. These treaties, being probably the last which will ever
be made with them, are characterized by great liberality on the part of the government. They give the Indians a liberal sum
in consideration of their removal, and comfortable subsistence on their arrival at their new homes. If it be their real interest
to maintain a separate existence, they will there be at liberty to do so without the inconveniences and vexations to which
they would unavoidably have been subject in Alabama and Mississippi.

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in
devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes
disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite
melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one
generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions
of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the
existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human
race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found
by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our
extensive republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can
devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization,
and religion?

The present policy of the government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes
which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern states were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the
whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries
occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to
a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.

Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our
children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects.
Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does humanity weep at
these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from
it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body
or in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands
of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of
their arrival. Can it be cruel in this government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented
in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and
support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing
to the West on such conditions? If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude
and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?
Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered,
the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the
laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the
general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

In the consummation of a policy originating at an early period, and steadily pursued by every administration within the present
century--so just to the states and so generous to the Indians--the executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation
of Congress and of all good and disinterested men. The states, moreover, have a right to demand it. It was substantially a
part of the compact which made them members of our Confederacy. With Georgia there is an express contract; with the new states
an implied one of equal obligation. Why, in authorizing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama to form
constitutions and become separate states, did Congress include within their limits extensive tracts of Indian lands, and,
in some instances, powerful Indian tribes? Was it not understood by both parties that the power of the states was to be coextensive
with their limits, and that, with all convenient dispatch, the general government should extinguish the Indian title and remove
every obstruction to the complete jurisdiction of the state governments over the soil? Probably not one of those states would
have accepted a separate existence--certainly it would never have been granted by Congress--had it been understood that they
were to be confined forever to those small portions of their nominal territory the Indian title to which had at the time been
extinguished.

It is, therefore, a duty which this government owes to the new states to extinguish as soon as possible the Indian title to
all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits. When this is done the duties of the general government
in relation to the states and the Indians within their limits are at an end. The Indians may leave the state or not, as they
choose. The purchase of their lands does not alter in the least their personal relations with the state government. No act
of the general government has ever been deemed necessary to give the states jurisdiction over the persons of the Indians.
That they possess by virtue of their sovereign power within their own limits in as full a manner before as after the purchase
of the Indian lands; nor can this government add to or diminish it.

May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indians oppressed by
subjection to the laws of the states, will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true
condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which
they may be supposed to be threatened.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 2, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 500-529.

In August 1990 Iraqi forces invaded neighbouring Kuwait in an attempt to gain control of its oil reserves, prompting U.S.
President George Bush to direct a massive American military buildup in Saudi Arabia to protect against any further Iraqi aggression.
The Bush administration officially dubbed the defense of Saudi Arabia “Operation Desert Shield,” but the size and scope of
the American presence (more than 500,000 American troops had arrived in Saudi Arabia by January 1991) made it clear that a
powerful offensive capability existed for U.S. forces. Throughout the military buildup, American officials negotiated with
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in an effort to persuade him to withdraw from Kuwait. These efforts failed, as did a United
Nations' effort to mediate an Iraqi withdrawal. When the United Nations Security Council deadline of January 15, 1991, passed
without an Iraqi withdrawal, American and allied forces launched a massive six-week aerial bombardment that decimated Iraqi
supplies, troops, and fortifications in Kuwait and southern Iraq. Excerpts of Bush's speech announcing the opening of the
air campaign, known as “Operation Desert Storm,” are presented here.

Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. These attacks continue as I speak.
Ground forces are not engaged.

This conflict started August 2d when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait--a member of the Arab
League and a member of the United Nations--was crushed; its people, brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this
cruel war against Kuwait. Tonight, the battle has been joined. . . .

As I report to you, air attacks are underway against military targets in Iraq. We are determined to knock out Saddam Hussein's
nuclear bomb potential. We will also destroy his chemical weapons facilities. Much of Saddam's artillery and tanks will be
destroyed. Our operations are designed to best protect the lives of all the coalition forces by targeting Saddam's vast military
arsenal. Initial reports from General Schwarzkopf are that our operations are proceeding according to plan.

Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein's forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored
to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free. Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions,
and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of
nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.

Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some
effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies
concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own.
He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities--and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children.

While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now possesses, an infinitely more dangerous
weapon of mass destruction--a nuclear weapon. And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam
Hussein dug in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.

While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile economies of the Third World, emerging
democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world, including to our own economy.

The United States, together with the United Nations, exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful
end. However, Saddam clearly felt that by stalling and threatening and defying the United Nations, he could weaken the forces
arrayed against him.

While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt. While the world prayed for peace, Saddam
prepared for war.

I had hoped that when the United States Congress, in historic debate, took its resolute action, Saddam would realize he could
not prevail and would move out of Kuwait in accord with the United Nations resolutions. He did not do that. Instead, he remained
intransigent, certain that time was on his side.

Saddam was warned over and over again to comply with the will of the United Nations: Leave Kuwait, or be driven out. Saddam
has arrogantly rejected all warnings. Instead, he tried to make this a dispute between Iraq and the United States of America.

Well, he failed. Tonight, 28 nations--countries from 5 continents, Europe and Asia, Africa, and the Arab League--have forces
in the Gulf area standing shoulder to shoulder against Saddam Hussein. These countries had hoped the use of force could be
avoided. Regrettably, we now believe that only force will make him leave.

Prior to ordering our forces into battle, I instructed our military commanders to take every necessary step to prevail as
quickly as possible, and with the greatest degree of protection possible for American and allied service men and women. I've
told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight. Our troops will have
the best possible support in the entire world, and they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind their back. I'm
hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long and that casualties will be held to an absolute minimum.

This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war.
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order--a world where the rule
of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful--and we will be--we have a real
chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise
and vision of the U.N.'s founders.

We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety. Our
goal is not the conquest of Iraq. It is the liberation of Kuwait. It is my hope that somehow the Iraqi people can, even now,
convince their dictator that he must lay down his arms, leave Kuwait, and let Iraq itself rejoin the family of peace-loving
nations.

Thomas Paine wrote many years ago: “These are the times that try men's souls.” Those well-known words are so very true today.
But even as planes of the multinational forces attack Iraq, I prefer to think of peace, not war. I am convinced not only that
we will prevail but that out of the horror of combat will come the recognition that no nation can stand against a world united,
no nation will be permitted to brutally assault its neighbor.

No President can easily commit our sons and daughters to war. They are the Nation's finest. Ours is an all-volunteer force,
magnificently trained, highly motivated. The troops know why they're there. . . .

And let me say to everyone listening or watching tonight: When the troops we've sent in finish their work, I am determined
to bring them home as soon as possible.

Tonight, as our forces fight, they and their families are in our prayers. May God bless each and every one of them, and the
coalition forces at our side in the Gulf, and may He continue to bless our nation, the United States of America.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, January 16, 1991.

Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, French economist and father of the founder of the Du Pont powder works in Wilmington, Delaware, was an early supporter of
the French Revolution and a persistent worker in the cause of good relations between France and the United States. He had
dealings with Jefferson from the beginning of the latter's presidency, and corresponded with him for many years. In the spring
of 1816, Du Pont was engaged in writing constitutions for several new South American republics, and he asked his friend's
opinion of representative government. In his reply, written April 24, 1816, Jefferson took the opportunity to expound on his
favorite subject, Republicanism, and explained that in a good government, the enlightened and educated, "the natural aristocracy,"
as he called them, should rule--but not without a check by the people.

Distinguishing between the structure of the government and the moral principles on which you prescribe its administration,
with the latter we concur cordially, with the former we should not. We of the United States, you know, are constitutionally
and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has
been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when,
by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right
to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from
its use or direction more than they him. We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the
society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent, and to delegate
those to which they are not competent to deputies named, and removable for unfaithful conduct, by themselves immediately.

Hence, with us, the people (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society) being competent to judge of the
facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors; but being
unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet competent judges of human character,
they chose for their management representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves.

Thus, our President is chosen by ourselves, directly in practice, for we vote for A as elector only on the condition he will vote for B; our representatives by ourselves immediately; our Senate and judges of law through electors chosen by ourselves. And we believe
that this proximate choice and power of removal is the best security which experience has sanctioned for ensuring an honest
conduct in the functionaries of society. . . .

But when we come to the moral principles on which the government is to be administered, we come to what is proper for all
conditions of society. I meet you there in all the benevolence and rectitude of your native character; and I love myself always
most where I concur most with you. Liberty, truth, probity, honor are declared to be the four cardinal principles of your
society.

I believe with you that morality, compassion, generosity are innate elements of the human constitution; that there exists
a right independent of force; that a right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed
to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible
beings; that no one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made
a part of his nature; that justice is the fundamental law of society; that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty
of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest, breaks up the foundations of society; that action
by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately
and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic; that all governments are more or less republican in proportion
as this principle enters more or less into their composition; and that a government by representation is capable of extension
over a greater surface of country than one of any other form. These, my friend, are the essentials in which you and I agree;
however, in our zeal for their maintenance, we may be perplexed and divaricate as to the structure of society most likely
to secure them. . . .

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of
day. Although I do not, with some enthusiasts, believe that the human condition will ever advance to such a state of perfection
as that there shall no longer be pain or vice in the world, yet I believe it susceptible of much improvement, and most of
all in matters of government and religion; and that the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by
which it is to be effected.

Theodore Roosevelt favored a rational and equitable policy toward Native Americans, but he firmly believed that the Indian nations had no claim to the land they inhabited and were in fact nomadic people who
by temperament had no desire to hold property. Roosevelt, disdainful of such zealous reformers as novelist Helen Hunt Jackson
because he thought they distorted the character of Native American-white relations, dubbed the entire group “foolish sentimentalists.”
He gave his own interpretation of government dealings with Native Americans in the following passage from The Winning of the West (1889-96).

It is greatly to be wished that some competent person would write a full and true history of our national dealings with the
Indians. Undoubtedly the latter have often suffered terrible injustice at our hands. A number of instances, such as the conduct
of the Georgians to the Cherokees in the early part of the present century, or the whole treatment of Chief Joseph and his
Nez Percés, might be mentioned, which are indelible blots on our fair fame; and yet, in describing our dealings with the red
men as a whole, historians do us much less than justice.

It was wholly impossible to avoid conflicts with the weaker race, unless we were willing to see the American continent fall
into the hands of some other strong power; and even had we adopted such a ludicrous policy, the Indians themselves would have
made war upon us. It cannot be too often insisted that they did not own the land; or, at least, that their ownership was merely
such as that claimed often by our own white hunters. If the Indians really owned Kentucky in 1775, then in 1776 it was the
property of Boone and his associates; and to dispossess one party was as great a wrong as to dispossess the other. To recognize
the Indian ownership of the limitless prairies and forests of this continent--that is, to consider the dozen squalid savages
who hunted at long intervals over a territory of 1,000 square miles as owning it outright--necessarily implies a similar recognition
of the claims of every white hunter, squatter, horse thief, or wandering cattleman.

Take as an example the country round the Little Missouri. When the cattlemen, the first actual settlers, came into this land
in 1882, it was already scantily peopled by a few white hunters and trappers. The latter were extremely jealous of intrusion;
they had held their own in spite of the Indians, and, like the Indians, the inrush of settlers and the consequent destruction
of the game meant their own undoing; also, again like the Indians, they felt that their having hunted over the soil gave them
a vague prescriptive right to its sole occupation, and they did their best to keep actual settlers out. In some cases, to
avoid difficulty, their nominal claims were bought up; generally and rightly, they were disregarded. Yet they certainly had
as good a right to the Little Missouri country as the Sioux have to most of the land on their present reservations.

In fact, the mere statement of the case is sufficient to show the absurdity of asserting that the land really belonged to
the Indians. The different tribes have always been utterly unable to define their own boundaries. Thus the Delawares and Wyandots,
in 1785, though entirely separate nations, claimed and, in a certain sense, occupied almost exactly the same territory.

Moreover, it was wholly impossible for our policy to be always consistent. Nowadays we undoubtedly ought to break up the great
Indian reservations, disregard the tribal governments, allot the land in severalty (with, however, only a limited power of
alienation), and treat the Indians as we do other citizens, with certain exceptions, for their sakes as well as ours.

But this policy, which it would be wise to follow now, would have been wholly impracticable a century since. Our central government
was then too weak either effectively to control its own members or adequately to punish aggressions made upon them; and even
if it had been strong, it would probably have proved impossible to keep entire order over such a vast, sparsely peopled frontier,
with such turbulent elements on both sides. The Indians could not be treated as individuals at that time. There was no possible
alternative, therefore, to treating their tribes as nations, exactly as the French and English had done before us. Our difficulties
were partly inherited from these, our predecessors; were partly caused by our own misdeeds; but were mainly the inevitable
result of the conditions under which the problem had to be solved--no human wisdom or virtue could have worked out a peaceable
solution.

As a nation, our Indian policy is to be blamed because of the weakness it displayed, because of its shortsightedness and its
occasional leaning to the policy of the sentimental humanitarians; and we have often promised what was impossible to perform;
but there has been little willful wrongdoing. Our government almost always tries to act fairly by the tribes; the governmental
agents (some of whom have been dishonest and others foolish, but who as a class have been greatly traduced) in their reports
are far more apt to be unjust to the whites than to the reds; and the federal authorities, though unable to prevent much of
the injustice, still did check and control the white borderers very much more effectually than the Indian sachems and war
chiefs controlled their young braves.

The tribes were warlike and bloodthirsty, jealous of each other and of the whites; they claimed the land for their hunting
grounds, but their claims all conflicted with one another; their knowledge of their own boundaries was so indefinite that
they were always willing, for inadequate compensation, to sell land to which they had merely the vaguest title; and yet, when
once they had received the goods, were generally reluctant to make over even what they could; they coveted the goods and scalps
of the whites, and the young warriors were always on the alert to commit outrages when they could do it with impunity.

On the other hand, the evil-disposed whites regarded the Indians as fair game for robbery and violence of any kind; and the
far larger number of well-disposed men, who would not willingly wrong any Indian, were themselves maddened by the memories
of hideous injuries received. They bitterly resented the action of the government which, in their eyes, failed to properly
protect them, and yet sought to keep them out of waste, uncultivated lands which they did not regard as being any more the
property of the Indians than of their own hunters. With the best intentions, it was wholly impossible for any government to
evolve order out of such chaos without resort to the ultimate arbitrator--the sword.

The purely sentimental historians take no account of the difficulties under which we labored, nor of the countless wrongs
and provocations we endured, while grossly magnifying the already lamentably large number of injuries for which we really
deserve to be held responsible. To get a fair idea of the Indians of the present day and of our dealings with them, we have
fortunately one or two excellent books, notably Hunting Grounds of the Great West and Our Wild Indians, by Col. Richard I. Dodge (Hartford, 1882), and Massacres of the Mountains, by J. P. Dunn (New York, 1886). As types of the opposite class, which are worse than valueless and which nevertheless might
cause some hasty future historian, unacquainted with the facts, to fall into grievous error, I may mention, A Century of Dishonor, by H. H. (Mrs. Helen Hunt Jackson), and Our Indian Wards (George W. Manypenny).

The latter is a mere spiteful diatribe against various Army officers, and neither its manner nor its matter warrants more
than an allusion. Mrs. Jackson's book is capable of doing more harm because it is written in good English, and because the
author, who had lived a pure and noble life, was intensely in earnest in what she wrote, and had the most praiseworthy purpose--to
prevent our committing any more injustice to the Indians. This was all most proper; every good man or woman should do whatever
is possible to make the government treat the Indians of the present time in the fairest and most generous spirit, and to provide
against any repetition of such outrages as were inflicted upon the Nez Percés and upon part of the Cheyennes, or the wrongs
with which the civilized nations of the Indian territory are sometimes threatened.

The purpose of the book is excellent, but the spirit in which it is written cannot be called even technically honest. As a
polemic, it is possible that it did not do harm (though the effect of even a polemic is marred by hysterical indifference
to facts). As a history it would be beneath criticism were it not that the high character of the author and her excellent
literary work in other directions have given it a fictitious value and made it much quoted by the large class of amiable but
maudlin fanatics concerning whom it may be said that the excellence of their intentions but indifferently atones for the invariable
folly and ill effect of their actions. It is not too much to say that the book is thoroughly untrustworthy from cover to cover,
and that not a single statement it contains should be accepted without independent proof; for even those that are not absolutely
false are often as bad on account of so much of the truth having been suppressed.

One effect of this is of course that the author's recitals of the many real wrongs of Indian tribes utterly fail to impress
us because she lays quite as much stress on those that are nonexistent and on the equally numerous cases where the wrongdoing
was wholly the other way. To get an idea of the value of the work, it is only necessary to compare her statements about almost
any tribe with the real facts, choosing at random; for instance, compare her accounts of the Sioux and the Plains tribes generally
with those given by Colonel Dodge in his two books; or her recital of the Sandy Creek massacre with the facts as stated by
Mr. Dunn, who is apt, if anything, to lean to the Indian's side.

These foolish sentimentalists not only write foul slanders about their own countrymen but are themselves the worst possible
advisers on any point touching Indian management. They would do well to heed General Sheridan's bitter words, written when
many Easterners were clamoring against the Army authorities because they took partial vengeance for a series of brutal outrages:
"I do not know how far these humanitarians should be excused on account of their ignorance; but surely it is the only excuse
that can give a shadow of justification for aiding and abetting such horrid crimes."

In his annual message to Congress on January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt called upon Congress to enact the Lend-Lease program
that he had first proposed at a press conference the previous December. Though the first part of the message concerned itself
with the war in Europe and sought to define America's war aims, the latter part was more significant as an expression of Roosevelt's
vision of the future. Known as the Four Freedoms Speech, it was a formulation of the social and political goals that the President
hoped to attain for the American people, as well as the people of the world, following the war.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all our
fellowmen within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and
dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive
national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support
of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere.
By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and security
of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition
that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated
by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national
policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. Today it is abundantly evident that American
citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger. Therefore, the
immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.

Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being
reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some
cases--and I am sorry to say very important cases--we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.
The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding
up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, ability,
and patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results.

To give two illustrations:

We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and
to catch up.

We are ahead of schedule in building warships; but we are working to get even further ahead of schedule.

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements
of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools and plant facilities
and new assembly lines and shipways must first be constructed before the actual matériel begins to flow steadily and speedily
from them.

The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is
certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those
of the nations we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.

New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations
and authorizations to carry on what we have begun. I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture
additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor
nations.

Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower. They
do need billions of dollars' worth of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them in ready cash. We cannot, and will not, tell them they must surrender
merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have. I do not recommend that we make them
a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons--a loan to be repaid in dollars. I recommend that we make it possible
for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. Nearly
all of their matériel would, if the time ever came, be useful for our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide
how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who, by their determined and heroic resistance,
are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense. For what we send abroad we shall be repaid, within a reasonable
time following the close of hostilities, in similar materials or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds which they can
produce and which we need.

Let us say to the democracies, "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies,
our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you,
in ever increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of
international law and as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid is not an
act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be. When the dictators are ready to make war upon us,
they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an
act of war. Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance and, therefore,
becomes an instrument of oppression.

The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid
felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The nation's hands
must not be tied when the nation's life is in danger. We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency--as serious
as war itself--demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national
need.

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders
of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their
own groups.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or troublemakers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example;
and if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.

As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses and those behind them
who build our defenses must have the stamina and courage which come from an unshakable belief in the manner of life which
they are defending. The mighty action which we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fighting
for.

The nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of
their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our people,
have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution
which is today a supreme factor in the world. There is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.
The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: Equality of opportunity
for youth and for others; jobs for those who can work; security for those who need it; the ending of special privilege for
the few; the preservation of civil liberties for all; the enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly
rising standard of living. These are the simple and basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable
complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the
degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement. As examples:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call. A part
of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my budget message I recommend that a greater portion of this
great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich
out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes
to guide our legislation. If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks,
will give you their applause.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every
nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point
and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere
in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.
That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the
crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination
and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change--in a perpetual peaceful revolution--a revolution
which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions--without the concentration camp or the quicklime in
the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom
under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle
to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is in our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save
victory.

I am again called upon by the voice of my country to execute the functions of its Chief Magistrate. When the occasion proper
for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence
which has been reposed in me by the people of united America.

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am
now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any
instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject
to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

There is no constitutional or legal requirement that the President shall take the oath of office in the presence of the people,
but there is so manifest an appropriateness in the public induction to office of the chief executive officer of the nation
that from the beginning of the Government the people, to whose service the official oath consecrates the officer, have been
called to witness the solemn ceremonial. The oath taken in the presence of the people becomes a mutual covenant. The officer
covenants to serve the whole body of the people by a faithful execution of the laws, so that they may be the unfailing defense
and security of those who respect and observe them, and that neither wealth, station, nor the power of combinations shall
be able to evade their just penalties or to wrest them from a beneficent public purpose to serve the ends of cruelty or selfishness.

My promise is spoken; yours unspoken, but not the less real and solemn. The people of every State have here their representatives.
Surely I do not misinterpret the spirit of the occasion when I assume that the whole body of the people covenant with me and
with each other to-day to support and defend the Constitution and the Union of the States, to yield willing obedience to all
the laws and each to every other citizen his equal civil and political rights. Entering thus solemnly into covenant with each
other, we may reverently invoke and confidently expect the favor and help of Almighty God-that He will give to me wisdom,
strength, and fidelity, and to our people a spirit of fraternity and a love of righteousness and peace.

This occasion derives peculiar interest from the fact that the Presidential term which begins this day is the twenty-sixth
under our Constitution. The first inauguration of President Washington took place in New York, where Congress was then sitting,
on the 30th day of April, 1789, having been deferred by reason of delays attending the organization of the Congress and the
canvass of the electoral vote. Our people have already worthily observed the centennials of the Declaration of Independence,
of the battle of Yorktown, and of the adoption of the Constitution, and will shortly celebrate in New York the institution
of the second great department of our constitutional scheme of government. When the centennial of the institution of the judicial
department, by the organization of the Supreme Court, shall have been suitably observed, as I trust it will be, our nation
will have fully entered its second century.

I will not attempt to note the marvelous and in great part happy contrasts between our country as it steps over the threshold
into its second century of organized existence under the Constitution and that weak but wisely ordered young nation that looked
undauntedly down the first century, when all its years stretched out before it.

Our people will not fail at this time to recall the incidents which accompanied the institution of government under the Constitution,
or to find inspiration and guidance in the teachings and example of Washington and his great associates, and hope and courage
in the contrast which thirty-eight populous and prosperous States offer to the thirteen States, weak in everything except
courage and the love of liberty, that then fringed our Atlantic seaboard.

The Territory of Dakota has now a population greater than any of the original States (except Virginia) and greater than the
aggregate of five of the smaller States in 1790. The center of population when our national capital was located was east of
Baltimore, and it was argued by many well-informed persons that it would move eastward rather than westward; yet in 1880 it
was found to be near Cincinnati, and the new census about to be taken will show another stride to the westward. That which
was the body has come to be only the rich fringe of the nation's robe. But our growth has not been limited to territory, population
and aggregate wealth, marvelous as it has been in each of those directions. The masses of our people are better fed, clothed,
and housed than their fathers were. The facilities for popular education have been vastly enlarged and more generally diffused.

The virtues of courage and patriotism have given recent proof of their continued presence and increasing power in the hearts
and over the lives of our people. The influences of religion have been multiplied and strengthened. The sweet offices of charity
have greatly increased. The virtue of temperance is held in higher estimation. We have not attained an ideal condition. Not
all of our people are happy and prosperous; not all of them are virtuous and law-abiding. But on the whole the opportunities
offered to the individual to secure the comforts of life are better than are found elsewhere and largely better than they
were here one hundred years ago.

The surrender of a large measure of sovereignty to the General Government, effected by the adoption of the Constitution, was
not accomplished until the suggestions of reason were strongly reenforced by the more imperative voice of experience. The
divergent interests of peace speedily demanded a "more perfect union." The merchant, the shipmaster, and the manufacturer
discovered and disclosed to our statesmen and to the people that commercial emancipation must be added to the political freedom
which had been so bravely won. The commercial policy of the mother country had not relaxed any of its hard and oppressive
features. To hold in check the development of our commercial marine, to prevent or retard the establishment and growth of
manufactures in the States, and so to secure the American market for their shops and the carrying trade for their ships, was
the policy of European statesmen, and was pursued with the most selfish vigor.

Petitions poured in upon Congress urging the imposition of discriminating duties that should encourage the production of needed
things at home. The patriotism of the people, which no longer found afield of exercise in war, was energetically directed
to the duty of equipping the young Republic for the defense of its independence by making its people self-dependent. Societies
for the promotion of home manufactures and for encouraging the use of domestics in the dress of the people were organized
in many of the States. The revival at the end of the century of the same patriotic interest in the preservation and development
of domestic industries and the defense of our working people against injurious foreign competition is an incident worthy of
attention. It is not a departure but a return that we have witnessed. The protective policy had then its opponents. The argument
was made, as now, that its benefits inured to particular classes or sections.

If the question became in any sense or at any time sectional, it was only because slavery existed in some of the States. But
for this there was no reason why the cotton-producing States should not have led or walked abreast with the New England States
in the production of cotton fabrics. There was this reason only why the States that divide with Pennsylvania the mineral treasures
of the great southeastern and central mountain ranges should have been so tardy in bringing to the smelting furnace and to
the mill the coal and iron from their near opposing hillsides. Mill fires were lighted at the funeral pile of slavery. The
emancipation proclamation was heard in the depths of the earth as well as in the sky; men were made free, and material things
became our better servants.

The sectional element has happily been eliminated from the tariff discussion. We have no longer States that are necessarily
only planting States. None are excluded from achieving that diversification of pursuits among the people which brings wealth
and contentment. The cotton plantation will not be less valuable when the product is spun in the country town by operatives
whose necessities call for diversified crops and create a home demand for garden and agricultural products. Every new mine,
furnace, and factory is an extension of the productive capacity of the State more real and valuable than added territory.

Shall the prejudices and paralysis of slavery continue to hang upon the skirts of progress? How long will those who rejoice
that slavery no longer exists cherish or tolerate the incapacities it put upon their communities? I look hopefully to the
continuance of our protective system and to the consequent development of manufacturing and mining enterprises in the States
hitherto wholly given to agriculture as a potent influence in the perfect unification of our people. The men who have invested
their capital in these enterprises, the farmers who have felt the benefit of their neighborhood, and the men who work in shop
or field will not fail to find and to defend a community of interest.

Is it not quite possible that the farmers and the promoters of the great mining and manufacturing enterprises which have recently
been established in the South may yet find that the free ballot of the workingman, without distinction of race, is needed
for their defense as well as for his own? I do not doubt that if those men in the South who now accept the tariff views of
Clay and the constitutional expositions of Webster would courageously avow and defend their real convictions they would not
find it difficult, by friendly instruction and cooperation, to make the black man their efficient and safe ally, not only
in establishing correct principles in our national administration, but in preserving for their local communities the benefits
of social order and economical and honest government. At least until the good offices of kindness and education have been
fairly tried the contrary conclusion can not be plausibly urged.

I have altogether rejected the suggestion of a special Executive policy for any section of our country. It is the duty of
the Executive to administer and enforce in the methods and by the instrumentalities pointed out and provided by the Constitution
all the laws enacted by Congress. These laws are general and their administration should be uniform and equal. As a citizen
may not elect what laws he will obey, neither may the Executive eject which he will enforce. The duty to obey and to execute
embraces the Constitution in its entirety and the whole code of laws enacted under it. The evil example of permitting individuals,
corporations, or communities to nullify the laws because they cross some selfish or local interest or prejudices is full of
danger, not only to the nation at large, but much more to those who use this pernicious expedient to escape their just obligations
or to obtain an unjust advantage over others. They will presently themselves be compelled to appeal to the law for protection,
and those who would use the law as a defense must not deny that use of it to others.

If our great corporations would more scrupulously observe their legal limitations and duties, they would have less cause to
complain of the unlawful limitations of their rights or of violent interference with their operations. The community that
by concert, open or secret, among its citizens denies to a portion of its members their plain rights under the law has severed
the only safe bond of social order and prosperity. The evil works from a bad center both ways. It demoralizes those who practice
it and destroys the faith of those who suffer by it in the efficiency of the law as a safe protector. The man in whose breast
that faith has been darkened is naturally the subject of dangerous and uncanny suggestions. Those who use unlawful methods,
if moved by no higher motive than the selfishness that prompted them, may well stop and inquire what is to be the end of this.

An unlawful expedient can not become a permanent condition of government. If the educated and influential classes in a community
either practice or connive at the systematic violation of laws that seem to them to cross their convenience, what can they
expect when the lesson that convenience or a supposed class interest is a sufficient cause for lawlessness has been well learned
by the ignorant classes? A community where law is the rule of conduct and where courts, not mobs, execute its penalties is
the only attractive field for business investments and honest labor.

Our naturalization laws should be so amended as to make the inquiry into the character and good disposition of persons applying
for citizenship more careful and searching. Our existing laws have been in their administration an unimpressive and often
an unintelligible form. We accept the man as a citizen without any knowledge of his fitness, and he assumes the duties of
citizenship without any knowledge as to what they are. The privileges of American citizenship are so great and its duties
so grave that we may well insist upon a good knowledge of every person applying for citizenship and a good knowledge by him
of our institutions. We should not cease to be hospitable to immigration, but we should cease to be careless as to the character
of it. There are men of all races, even the best, whose coming is necessarily a burden upon our public revenues or a threat
to social order. These should be identified and excluded.

We have happily maintained a policy of avoiding all interference with European affairs. We have been only interested spectators
of their contentions in diplomacy and in war, ready to use our friendly offices to promote peace, but never obtruding our
advice and never attempting unfairly to coin the distresses of other powers into commercial advantage to ourselves. We have
a just right to expect that our European policy will be the American policy of European courts.

It is so manifestly incompatible with those precautions for our peace and safety which all the great powers habitually observe
and enforce in matters affecting them that a shorter waterway between our eastern and western seaboards should be dominated
by any European Government that we may confidently expect that such a purpose will not be entertained by any friendly power.

We shall in the future, as in the past, use every endeavor to maintain and enlarge our friendly relations with all the great
powers, but they will not expect us to look kindly upon any project that would leave us subject to the dangers of a hostile
observation or environment. We have not sought to dominate or to absorb any of our weaker neighbors, but rather to aid and
encourage them to establish free and stable governments resting upon the consent of their own people. We have a clear right
to expect, therefore, that no European Government will seek to establish colonial dependencies upon the territory of these
independent American States. That which a sense of justice restrains us from seeking they may be reasonably expected willingly
to forego.

It must not be assumed, however, that our interests are so exclusively American that our entire inattention to any events
that may transpire elsewhere can be taken for granted. Our citizens domiciled for purposes of trade in all countries and in
many of the islands of the sea demand and will have our adequate care in their personal and commercial rights. The necessities
of our Navy require convenient coaling stations and dock and harbor privileges. These and other trading privileges we will
feel free to obtain only by means that do not in any degree partake of coercion, however feeble the government from which
we ask such concessions. But having fairly obtained them by methods and for purposes entirely consistent with the most friendly
disposition toward all other powers, our consent will be necessary to any modification or impairment of the concession.

We shall neither fail to respect the flag of any friendly nation or the just rights of its citizens, nor to exact the like
treatment for our own. Calmness, justice, and consideration should characterize our diplomacy. The offices of an intelligent
diplomacy or of friendly arbitration in proper cases should be adequate to the peaceful adjustment of all international difficulties.
By such methods we will make our contribution to the world's peace, which no nation values more highly, and avoid the opprobrium
which must fall upon the nation that ruthlessly breaks it.

The duty devolved by law upon the President to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint
all public officers whose appointment is not otherwise provided for in the Constitution or by act of Congress has become very
burdensome and its wise and efficient discharge full of difficulty. The civil list is so large that a personal knowledge of
any large number of the applicants is impossible. The President must rely upon the representations of others, and these are
often made inconsiderately and without any just sense of responsibility. I have a right, I think, to insist that those who
volunteer or are invited to give advice as to appointments shall exercise consideration and fidelity. A high sense of duty
and an ambition to improve the service should characterize all public officers.

There are many ways in which the convenience and comfort of those who have business with our public offices may be promoted
by a thoughtful and obliging officer, and I shall expect those whom I may appoint to justify their selection by a conspicuous
efficiency in the discharge of their duties. Honorable party service will certainly not be esteemed by me a disqualification
for public office, but it will in no case be allowed to serve as a shield of official negligence, incompetency, or delinquency.
It is entirely creditable to seek public office by proper methods and with proper motives, and all applicants will be treated
with consideration; but I shall need, and the heads of Departments will need, time for inquiry and deliberation. Persistent
importunity will not, therefore, be the best support of an application for office. Heads of Departments, bureaus, and all
other public officers having any duty connected therewith will be expected to enforce the civil-service law fully and without
evasion. Beyond this obvious duty I hope to do something more to advance the reform of the civil service. The ideal, or even
my own ideal, I shall probably not attain. Retrospect will be a safer basis of judgment than promises. We shall not, however,
I am sure, be able to put our civil service upon a nonpartisan basis until we have secured an incumbency that fair-minded
men of the opposition will approve for impartiality and integrity. As the number of such in the civil list is increased removals
from office will diminish.

While a Treasury surplus is not the greatest evil, it is a serious evil. Our revenue should be ample to meet the ordinary
annual demands upon our Treasury, with a sufficient margin for those extraordinary but scarcely less imperative demands which
arise now and then. Expenditure should always be made with economy and only upon public necessity. Wastefulness, profligacy,
or favoritism in public expenditures is criminal. But there is nothing in the condition of our country or of our people to
suggest that anything presently necessary to the public prosperity, security, or honor should be unduly postponed.

It will be the duty of Congress wisely to forecast and estimate these extraordinary demands, and, having added them to our
ordinary expenditures, to so adjust our revenue laws that no considerable annual surplus will remain. We will fortunately
be able to apply to the redemption of the public debt any small and unforeseen excess of revenue. This is better than to reduce
our income below our necessary expenditures, with the resulting choice between another change of our revenue laws and an increase
of the public debt. It is quite possible, I am sure, to effect the necessary reduction in our revenues without breaking down
our protective tariff or seriously injuring any domestic industry.

The construction of a sufficient number of modern war ships and of their necessary armament should progress as rapidly as
is consistent with care and perfection in plans and workmanship. The spirit, courage, and skill of our naval officers and
seamen have many times in our history given to weak ships and inefficient guns a rating greatly beyond that of the naval list.
That they will again do so upon occasion I do not doubt; but they ought not, by premeditation or neglect, to be left to the
risks and exigencies of an unequal combat. We should encourage the establishment of American steamship lines. The exchanges
of commerce demand stated, reliable, and rapid means of communication, and until these are provided the development of our
trade with the States lying south of us is impossible.

Our pension laws should give more adequate and discriminating relief to the Union soldiers and sailors and to their widows
and orphans. Such occasions as this should remind us that we owe everything to their valor and sacrifice.

It is a subject of congratulation that there is a near prospect of the admission into the Union of the Dakotas and Montana
and Washington Territories. This act of justice has been unreasonably delayed in the case of some of them. The people who
have settled these Territories are intelligent, enterprising, and patriotic, and the accession [of] these new States will
add strength to the nation. It is due to the settlers in the Territories who have availed themselves of the invitations of
our land laws to make homes upon the public domain that their titles should be speedily adjusted and their honest entries
confirmed by patent.

It is very gratifying to observe the general interest now being manifested in the reform of our election laws. Those who have
been for years calling attention to the pressing necessity of throwing about the ballot box and about the elector further
safeguards, in order that our elections might not only be free and pure, but might clearly appear to be so, will welcome the
accession of any who did not so soon discover the need of reform. The National Congress has not as yet taken control of elections
in that case over which the Constitution gives it jurisdiction, but has accepted and adopted the election laws of the several
States, provided penalties for their violation and a method of supervision. Only the inefficiency of the State laws or an
unfair partisan administration of them could suggest a departure from this policy.

It was clearly, however, in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that such an exigency might arise, and provision
was wisely made for it. The freedom of the ballot is a condition of our national life, and no power vested in Congress or
in the Executive to secure or perpetuate it should remain unused upon occasion. The people of all the Congressional districts
have an equal interest that the election in each shall truly express the views and wishes of a majority of the qualified electors
residing within it. The results of such elections are not local, and the insistence of electors residing in other districts
that they shall be pure and free does not savor at all of impertinence.

If in any of the States the public security is thought to be threatened by ignorance among the electors, the obvious remedy
is education. The sympathy and help of our people will not be withheld from any community struggling with special embarrassments
or difficulties connected with the suffrage if the remedies proposed proceed upon lawful lines and are promoted by just and
honorable methods. How shall those who practice election frauds recover that respect for the sanctity of the ballot which
is the first condition and obligation of good citizenship? The man who has come to regard the ballot box as a juggler's hat
has renounced his allegiance.

Let us exalt patriotism and moderate our party contentions. Let those who would die for the flag on the field of battle give
a better proof of their patriotism and a higher glory to their country by promoting fraternity and justice. A party success
that is achieved by unfair methods or by practices that partake of revolution is hurtful and evanescent even from a party
standpoint. We should hold our differing opinions in mutual respect, and, having submitted them to the arbitrament of the
ballot, should accept an adverse judgment with the same respect that we would have demanded of our opponents if the decision
had been in our favor.

No other people have a government more worthy of their respect and love or a land so magnificent in extent, so pleasant to
look upon, and so full of generous suggestion to enterprise and labor. God has placed upon our head a diadem and has laid
at our feet power and wealth beyond definition or calculation. But we must not forget that we take these gifts upon the condition
that justice and mercy shall hold the reins of power and that the upward avenues of hope shall be free to all the people.

I do not mistrust the future. Dangers have been in frequent ambush along our path, but we have uncovered and vanquished them
all. Passion has swept some of our communities, but only to give us a new demonstration that the great body of our people
are stable, patriotic, and law-abiding. No political party can long pursue advantage at the expense of public honor or by
rude and indecent methods without protest and fatal disaffection in its own body. The peaceful agencies of commerce are more
fully revealing the necessary unity of all our communities, and the increasing intercourse of our people is promoting mutual
respect. We shall find unalloyed pleasure in the revelation which our next census will make of the swift development of the
great resources of some of the States. Each State will bring its generous contribution to the great aggregate of the nation's
increase. And when the harvests from the fields, the cattle from the hills, and the ores of the earth shall have been weighed,
counted, and valued, we will turn from them all to crown with the highest honor the State that has most promoted education,
virtue, justice, and patriotism among its people.

The Spanish government sincerely wished to avoid war with the United States but faced tremendous internal problems coupled with a military
situation in Cuba that had gotten out of control. In an effort to appease the Americans without provoking the wrath of opposition
groups at home, it agreed to two of the main conditions that the United States had laid down as necessary to gain peace in
Cuba: the governor-general of Cuba was instructed by Spain to revoke reconcentration (a brutal policy of committing Cubans
to camps); and the commander of the Spanish army, on April 9, was told to grant an armistice to the insurgents as a prelude
to peace. Although William McKinley knew of these concessions when he went before Congress on April 11, the president had
already decided to heed both popular opinion and the pressure from his fellow Republicans and opt for war. Passages from his
war message are reprinted below.

Obedient to that precept of the Constitution which commands the President to give from time to time to the Congress information
of the state of the Union and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,
it becomes my duty now to address your body with regard to the grave crisis that has arisen in the relations of the United
States to Spain by reason of the warfare that for more than three years has raged in the neighboring island of Cuba.

I do so because of the intimate connection of the Cuban question with the state of our own Union and the grave relation the
course which it is now incumbent upon the nation to adopt must needs bear to the traditional policy of our government if it
is to accord with the precepts laid down by the founders of the republic and religiously observed by succeeding administrations
to the present day.

The present revolution is but the successor of other similar insurrections which have occurred in Cuba against the dominion
of Spain, extending over a period of nearly half a century, each of which, during its progress, has subjected the United States
to great effort and expense in enforcing its neutrality laws, caused enormous losses to American trade and commerce, caused
irritation, annoyance, and disturbance among our citizens, and, by the exercise of cruel, barbarous, and uncivilized practices
of warfare, shocked the sensibilities and offended the humane sympathies of our people.

Since the present revolution began in February 1895, this country has seen the fertile domain at our threshold ravaged by
fire and sword, in the course of a struggle unequaled in the history of the island and rarely paralleled as to the numbers
of the combatants and the bitterness of the contest by any revolution of modern times, where a dependent people striving to
be free have been opposed by the power of the sovereign state.

Our people have beheld a once prosperous community reduced to comparative want, its lucrative commerce virtually paralyzed,
its exceptional productiveness diminished, its fields laid waste, its mills in ruins, and its people perishing by tens of
thousands from hunger and destitution. We have found ourselves constrained, in the observance of that strict neutrality which
our laws enjoin, and which the law of nations commands, to police our own waters and watch our own seaports in prevention
of any unlawful act in aid of the Cubans.

Our trade has suffered; the capital invested by our citizens in Cuba has been largely lost, and the temper and forbearance
of our people have been so sorely tried as to beget a perilous unrest among our own citizens, which has inevitably found its
expression from time to time in the national legislature; so that issues wholly external to our own body politic engross attention
and stand in the way of that close devotion to domestic advancement that becomes a self-contained commonwealth, whose primal
maxim has been the avoidance of all foreign entanglements. All this must needs awaken, and has, indeed, aroused the utmost
concern on the part of this government, as well during my predecessor's term as in my own.

In April 1896, the evils from which our country suffered through the Cuban war became so onerous that my predecessor made
an effort to bring about a peace through the mediation of this government in any way that might tend to an honorable adjustment
of the contest between Spain and her revolted colony, on the basis of some effective scheme of self-government for Cuba under
the flag and sovereignty of Spain. It failed through the refusal of the Spanish government then in power to consider any form
of mediation or, indeed, any plan of settlement which did not begin with the actual submission of the insurgents to the mother
country, and then only on such terms as Spain herself might see fit to grant. The war continued unabated. The resistance of
the insurgents was in nowise diminished....

By the time the present administration took office a year ago, reconcentration--so called--had been made effective over the
better part of the four central and western provinces--Santa Clara, Matanzas, Habana, and Pinar del Rio....

In this state of affairs, my administration found itself confronted with the grave problem of its duty. My message of last
December reviewed the situation and narrated the steps taken with a view to relieving its acuteness and opening the way to
some form of honorable settlement. The assassination of the prime minister, Canovas, led to a change of government in Spain.
The former administration, pledged to subjugation without concession, gave place to that of a more liberal party, committed
long in advance to a policy of reform, involving the wider principle of home rule for Cuba and Puerto Rico....

The war in Cuba is of such a nature that short of subjugation or extermination a final military victory for either side seems
impracticable. The alternative lies in the physical exhaustion of the one or the other party, or perhaps of both--a condition
which in effect ended the ten years' war by the truce of Zanjon. The prospect of such a protraction and conclusion of the
present strife is a contingency hardly to be contemplated with equanimity by the civilized world, and least of all by the
United States, affected and injured as we are, deeply and intimately, by its very existence.

Realizing this, it appeared to be my duty, in a spirit of true friendliness, no less to Spain than to the Cubans who have
so much to lose by the prolongation of the struggle, to seek to bring about an immediate termination of the war. To this end
I submitted, on the 27th ultimo, as a result of much representation and correspondence, through the United States minister
at Madrid, propositions to the Spanish government looking to an armistice until October 1 for the negotiation of peace with
the good offices of the President.

In addition, I asked the immediate revocation of the order of reconcentration, so as to permit the people to return to their
farms and the needy to be relieved with provisions and supplies from the United States, cooperating with the Spanish authorities,
so as to afford full relief.

The reply of the Spanish cabinet was received on the night of the 31st ultimo. It offered, as the means to bring about peace
in Cuba, to confide the preparation thereof to the insular parliament, inasmuch as the concurrence of that body would be necessary
to reach a final result, it being, however, understood that the powers reserved by the constitution to the central government
are not lessened or diminished. As the Cuban parliament does not meet until the 4th of May next, the Spanish government would
not object, for its part, to accept at once a suspension of hostilities if asked for by the insurgents from the general in
chief, to whom it would pertain, in such case, to determine the duration and conditions of the armistice.

The propositions submitted by General Woodford and the reply of the Spanish government were both in the form of brief memoranda,
the texts of which are before me, and are substantially in the language above given. The function of the Cuban parliament
in the matter of "preparing" peace and the manner of its doing so are not expressed in the Spanish memorandum; but from General
Woodford's explanatory reports of preliminary discussions preceding the final conference it is understood that the Spanish
government stands ready to give the insular congress full powers to settle the terms of peace with the insurgents--whether
by direct negotiation or indirectly by means of legislation does not appear.

With this last overture in the direction of immediate peace, and its disappointing reception by Spain, the Executive is brought
to the end of his effort.

In my annual message of December last I said:

Of the untried measures there remained only: Recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recognition of the independence
of Cuba; neutral intervention to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contestants, and intervention in
favor of one or the other party. I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That, by our code of morality,
would be criminal aggression.

Thereupon I reviewed these alternatives, in the light of President Grant's measured words, uttered in 1875, when, after seven
years of sanguinary, destructive, and cruel hostilities in Cuba, he reached the conclusion that the recognition of the independence
of Cuba was impracticable and indefensible, and that the recognition of belligerence was not warranted by the facts according
to the tests of public law. I commented especially upon the latter aspect of the question, pointing out the inconveniences
and positive dangers of a recognition of belligerence which, while adding to the already onerous burdens of neutrality within
our own jurisdiction, could not in any way extend our influence or effective offices in the territory of hostilities.

Nothing has since occurred to change my view in this regard, and I recognize as fully now as then that the issuance of a proclamation
of neutrality, by which process the so-called recognition of belligerents is published, could, of itself and unattended by
other action, accomplish nothing toward the one end for which we labor--the instant pacification of Cuba and the cessation
of the misery that afflicts the island....

I said in my message of December last, "It is to be seriously considered whether the Cuban insurrection possesses beyond dispute
the attributes of statehood which alone can demand the recognition of belligerency in its favor." The same requirement must
certainly be no less seriously considered when the graver issue of recognizing independence is in question, for no less positive
test can be applied to the greater act than to the lesser; while, on the other hand, the influences and consequences of the
struggle upon the internal policy of the recognizing state, which form important factors when the recognition of belligerency
is concerned, are secondary, if not rightly eliminable, factors when the real question is whether the community claiming recognition
is or is not independent beyond peradventure.

Nor from the standpoint of expediency do I think it would be wise or prudent for this government to recognize at the present
time the independence of the so-called Cuban Republic. Such recognition is not necessary in order to enable the United States
to intervene and pacify the island. To commit this country now to the recognition of any particular government in Cuba might
subject us to embarrassing conditions of international obligation toward the organization so recognized. In case of intervention
our conduct would be subject to the approval or disapproval of such government. We would be required to submit to its direction
and to assume to it the mere relation of a friendly ally.

When it shall appear hereafter that there is within the island a government capable of performing the duties and discharging
the functions of a separate nation, and having, as a matter of fact, the proper forms and attributes of nationality, such
government can be promptly and readily recognized and the relations and interests of the United States with such nation adjusted.

There remain the alternative forms of intervention to end the war, either as an impartial neutral by imposing a rational compromise
between the contestants, or as the active ally of the one party or the other.

As to the first, it is not to be forgotten that during the last few months the relation of the United States has virtually
been one of friendly intervention in many ways, each not of itself conclusive, but all tending to the exertion of a potential
influence toward an ultimate pacific result, just and honorable to all interests concerned. The spirit of all our acts hitherto
has been an earnest, unselfish desire for peace and prosperity in Cuba, untarnished by differences between us and Spain, and
unstained by the blood of American citizens.

The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, according to the large dictates of humanity and
following many historical precedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless sacrifices of life by
internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable on rational grounds. It involves, however, hostile constraint upon
both the parties to the contest as well to enforce a truce as to guide the eventual settlement.

The grounds for such intervention may be briefly summarized as follows:

First, in the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing
there, and which the parties to the conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate. It is no answer to say this
is all in another country, belonging to another nation, and is therefore none of our business. It is specially our duty, for
it is right at our door.

Second, we owe it to our citizens in Cuba to afford them that protection and indemnity for life and property which no government
there can or will afford, and to that end to terminate the conditions that deprive them of legal protection.

Third, the right to intervene may be justified by the very serious injury to the commerce, trade, and business of our people,
and by the wanton destruction of property and devastation of the island.

Fourth, and which is of the utmost importance, the present condition of affairs in Cuba is a constant menace to our peace,
and entails upon this government an enormous expense. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with
which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger
and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our
very door by warships of a foreign nation, the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether, and
the irritating questions and entanglements thus arising--all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting
strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace, and compel us to keep on a semiwar footing with a nation with which
we are at peace.

These elements of danger and disorder already pointed out have been strikingly illustrated by a tragic event which has deeply
and justly moved the American people. I have already transmitted to Congress the report of the Naval Court of Inquiry on the
destruction of the battleship Maine in the harbor of Havana during the night of the 15th of February. The destruction of that noble vessel has filled the national
heart with inexpressible horror. Two hundred and fifty-eight brave sailors and marines and two officers of our Navy, reposing
in the fancied security of a friendly harbor, have been hurled to death, grief and want brought to their homes, and sorrow
to the nation.

The Naval Court of Inquiry, which, it is needless to say, commands the unqualified confidence of the government, was unanimous
in its conclusion that the destruction of the Maine was caused by an exterior explosion, that of a submarine mine. It did not assume to place the responsibility. That remains
to be fixed.

In any event, the destruction of the Maine, by whatever exterior cause, is a patent and impressive proof of a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable. That condition
is thus shown to be such that the Spanish government cannot assure safety and security to a vessel of the American Navy in
the harbor of Havana on a mission of peace, and rightfully there....

The long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the war cannot be attained. The fire of insurrection may
flame or may smolder with varying seasons, but it has not been, and it is plain that it cannot be, extinguished by present
methods. The only hope of relief and repose from a condition which can no longer be endured is the enforced pacification of
Cuba. In the name of humanity, in the name of civilization, in behalf of endangered American interests which give us the right
and the duty to speak and to act, the war in Cuba must stop.

In view of these facts and of these considerations, I ask the Congress to authorize and empower the President to take measures
to secure a full and final termination of hostilities between the government of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to secure
in the island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations,
insuring peace and tranquillity and the security of its citizens as well as our own, and to use the military and naval forces
of the United States as may be necessary for these purposes.

And in the interest of humanity and to aid in preserving the lives of the starving people of the island, I recommend that
the distribution of food and supplies be continued, and that an appropriation be made out of the public Treasury to supplement
the charity of our citizens.

The issue is now with the Congress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable
condition of affairs which is at our doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the
law, I await your action.

Yesterday, and since the preparation of the foregoing message, official information was received by me that the latest decree
of the queen regent of Spain directs General Blanco, in order to prepare and facilitate peace, to proclaim a suspension of
hostilities, the duration and details of which have not yet been communicated to me.

This fact with every other pertinent consideration will, I am sure, have your just and careful attention in the solemn deliberations
upon which you are about to enter. If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian, peace-loving
people will be realized. If it fails, it will be only another justification for our contemplated action.

Source: [United States Department of State] Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs of the United States, 1898, pp. 750-760.

Without solicitation on my part, I have been chosen by the free and voluntary suffrages of my countrymen to the most honorable
and most responsible office on earth. I am deeply impressed with gratitude for the confidence reposed in me. Honored with
this distinguished consideration at an earlier period of life than any of my predecessors, I can not disguise the diffidence
with which I am about to enter on the discharge of my official duties.

If the more aged and experienced men who have filled the office of President of the United States even in the infancy of the
Republic distrusted their ability to discharge the duties of that exalted station, what ought not to be the apprehensions
of one so much younger and less endowed now that our domain extends from ocean to ocean, that our people have so greatly increased
in numbers, and at a time when so great diversity of opinion prevails in regard to the principles and policy which should
characterize the administration of our Government? Well may the boldest fear and the wisest tremble when incurring responsibilities
on which may depend our country's peace and prosperity, and in some degree the hopes and happiness of the whole human family.

In assuming responsibilities so vast I fervently invoke the aid of that Almighty Ruler of the Universe in whose hands are
the destinies of nations and of men to guard this Heaven-favored land against the mischiefs which without His guidance might
arise from an unwise public policy. With a firm reliance upon the wisdom of Omnipotence to sustain and direct me in the path
of duty which I am appointed to pursue, I stand in the presence of this assembled multitude of my countrymen to take upon
myself the solemn obligation "to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

A concise enumeration of the principles which will guide me in the administrative policy of the Government is not only in
accordance with the examples set me by all my predecessors, but is eminently befitting the occasion.

The Constitution itself, plainly written as it is, the safeguard of our federative compact, the offspring of concession and
compromise, binding together in the bonds of peace and union this great and increasing family of free and independent States,
will be the chart by which I shall be directed.

It will be my first care to administer the Government in the true spirit of that instrument, and to assume no powers not expressly
granted or clearly implied in its terms. The Government of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers, and it
is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted powers and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or unauthorized implied
powers that we have the only sure guaranty against the recurrence of those unfortunate collisions between the Federal and
State authorities which have occasionally so much disturbed the harmony of our system and even threatened the perpetuity of
our glorious Union.

"To the States, respectively, or to the people" have been reserved "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
nor prohibited by it to the States." Each State is a complete sovereignty within the sphere of its reserved powers. The Government
of the Union, acting within the sphere of its delegated authority, is also a complete sovereignty. While the General Government
should abstain from the exercise of authority not clearly delegated to it, the States should be equally careful that in the
maintenance of their rights they do not overstep the limits of powers reserved to them. One of the most distinguished of my
predecessors attached deserved importance to "the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent
administration for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwark against antirepublican tendencies," and to the "preservation
of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad."

To the Government of the United States has been intrusted the exclusive management of our foreign affairs. Beyond that it
wields a few general enumerated powers. It does not force reform on the States. It leaves individuals, over whom it casts
its protecting influence, entirely free to improve their own condition by the legitimate exercise of all their mental and
physical powers. It is a common protector of each and all the States; of every man who lives upon our soil, whether of native
or foreign birth; of every religious sect, in their worship of the Almighty according to the dictates of their own conscience;
of every shade of opinion, and the most free inquiry; of every art, trade, and occupation consistent with the laws of the
States. And we rejoice in the general happiness, prosperity, and advancement of our country, which have been the offspring
of freedom, and not of power.

This most admirable and wisest system of well-regulated self-government among men ever devised by human minds has been tested
by its successful operation for more than half a century, and if preserved from the usurpations of the Federal Government
on the one hand and the exercise by the States of powers not reserved to them on the other, will, I fervently hope and believe,
endure for ages to come and dispense the blessings of civil and religious liberty to distant generations. To effect objects
so dear to every patriot I shall devote myself with anxious solicitude. It will be my desire to guard against that most fruitful
source of danger to the harmonious action of our system which consists in substituting the mere discretion and caprice of
the Executive or of majorities in the legislative department of the Government for powers which have been withheld from the
Federal Government by the Constitution. By the theory of our Government majorities rule, but this right is not an arbitrary
or unlimited one. It is a right to be exercised in subordination to the Constitution and in conformity to it. One great object
of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights. Minorities
have a right to appeal to the Constitution as a shield against such oppression.

That the blessings of liberty which our Constitution secures may be enjoyed alike by minorities and majorities, the Executive
has been wisely invested with a qualified veto upon the acts of the Legislature. It is a negative power, and is conservative
in its character. It arrests for the time hasty, inconsiderate, or unconstitutional legislation, invites reconsideration,
and transfers questions at issue between the legislative and executive departments to the tribunal of the people. Like all
other powers, it is subject to be abused. When judiciously and properly exercised, the Constitution itself may be saved from
infraction and the rights of all preserved and protected.

The inestimable value of our Federal Union is felt and acknowledged by all. By this system of united and confederated States
our people are permitted collectively and individually to seek their own happiness in their own way, and the consequences
have been most auspicious. Since the Union was formed the number of the States has increased from thirteen to twenty-eight;
two of these have taken their position as members of the Confederacy within the last week. Our population has increased from
three to twenty millions. New communities and States are seeking protection under its aegis, and multitudes from the Old World
are flocking to our shores to participate in its blessings. Beneath its benign sway peace and prosperity prevail. Freed from
the burdens and miseries of war, our trade and intercourse have extended throughout the world. Mind, no longer tasked in devising
means to accomplish or resist schemes of ambition, usurpation, or conquest, is devoting itself to man's true interests in
developing his faculties and powers and the capacity of nature to minister to his enjoyments. Genius is free to announce its
inventions and discoveries, and the hand is free to accomplish whatever the head conceives not incompatible with the rights
of a fellow-being. All distinctions of birth or of rank have been abolished. All citizens, whether native or adopted, are
placed upon terms of precise equality. All are entitled to equal rights and equal protection. No union exists between church
and state, and perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed to all sects and creeds.

These are some of the blessings secured to our happy land by our Federal Union. To perpetuate them it is our sacred duty to
preserve it. Who shall assign limits to the achievements of free minds and free hands under the protection of this glorious
Union? No treason to mankind since the organization of society would be equal in atrocity to that of him who would lift his
hand to destroy it. He would overthrow the noblest structure of human wisdom, which protects himself and his fellow-man. He
would stop the progress of free government and involve his country either in anarchy or despotism. He would extinguish the
fire of liberty, which warms and animates the hearts of happy millions and invites all the nations of the earth to imitate
our example. If he say that error and wrong are committed in the administration of the Government, let him remember that nothing
human can be perfect, and that under no other system of government revealed by Heaven or devised by man has reason been allowed
so free and broad a scope to combat error. Has the sword of despots proved to be a safer or surer instrument of reform in
government than enlightened reason? Does he expect to find among the ruins of this Union a happier abode for our swarming
millions than they now have under it? Every lover of his country must shudder at the thought of the possibility of its dissolution,
and will be ready to adopt the patriotic sentiment, "Our Federal Union-it must be preserved." To preserve it the compromises
which alone enabled our fathers to form a common constitution for the government and protection of so many States and distinct
communities, of such diversified habits, interests, and domestic institutions, must be sacredly and religiously observed.
Any attempt to disturb or destroy these compromises, being terms of the compact of union, can lead to none other than the
most ruinous and disastrous consequences.

It is a source of deep regret that in some sections of our country misguided persons have occasionally indulged in schemes
and agitations whose object is the destruction of domestic institutions existing in other sections-institutions which existed
at the adoption of the Constitution and were recognized and protected by it. All must see that if it were possible for them
to be successful in attaining their object the dissolution of the Union and the consequent destruction of our happy form of
government must speedily follow.

I am happy to believe that at every period of our existence as a nation there has existed, and continues to exist, among the
great mass of our people a devotion to the Union of the States which will shield and protect it against the moral treason
of any who would seriously contemplate its destruction. To secure a continuance of that devotion the compromises of the Constitution
must not only be preserved, but sectional jealousies and heartburnings must be discountenanced, and all should remember that
they are members of the same political family, having a common destiny. To increase the attachment of our people to the Union,
our laws should be just. Any policy which shall tend to favor monopolies or the peculiar interests of sections or classes
must operate to the prejudice of the interest of their fellow-citizens, and should be avoided. If the compromises of the Constitution
be preserved, if sectional jealousies and heartburnings be discountenanced, if our laws be just and the Government be practically
administered strictly within the limits of power prescribed to it, we may discard all apprehensions for the safety of the
Union.

With these views of the nature, character, and objects of the Government and the value of the Union, I shall steadily oppose
the creation of those institutions and systems which in their nature tend to pervert it from its legitimate purposes and make
it the instrument of sections, classes, and individuals. We need no national banks or other extraneous institutions planted
around the Government to control or strengthen it in opposition to the will of its authors. Experience has taught us how unnecessary
they are as auxiliaries of the public authorities-how impotent for good and how powerful for mischief.

Ours was intended to be a plain and frugal government, and I shall regard it to be my duty to recommend to Congress and, as
far as the Executive is concerned, to enforce by all the means within my power the strictest economy in the expenditure of
the public money which may be compatible with the public interests.

A national debt has become almost an institution of European monarchies. It is viewed in some of them as an essential prop
to existing governments. Melancholy is the condition of that people whose government can be sustained only by a system which
periodically transfers large amounts from the labor of the many to the coffers of the few. Such a system is incompatible with
the ends for which our republican Government was instituted. Under a wise policy the debts contracted in our Revolution and
during the War of 1812 have been happily extinguished. By a judicious application of the revenues not required for other necessary
purposes, it is not doubted that the debt which has grown out of the circumstances of the last few years may be speedily paid
off.

I congratulate my fellow-citizens on the entire restoration of the credit of the General Government of the Union and that
of many of the States. Happy would it be for the indebted States if they were freed from their liabilities, many of which
were incautiously contracted. Although the Government of the Union is neither in a legal nor a moral sense bound for the debts
of the States, and it would be a violation of our compact of union to assume them, yet we can not but feel a deep interest
in seeing all the States meet their public liabilities and pay off their just debts at the earliest practicable period. That
they will do so as soon as it can be done without imposing too heavy burdens on their citizens there is no reason to doubt.
The sound moral and honorable feeling of the people of the indebted States can not be questioned, and we are happy to perceive
a settled disposition on their part, as their ability returns after a season of unexampled pecuniary embarrassment, to pay
off all just demands and to acquiesce in any reasonable measures to accomplish that object.

One of the difficulties which we have had to encounter in the practical administration of the Government consists in the adjustment
of our revenue laws and the levy of the taxes necessary for the support of Government. In the general proposition that no more money shall be collected than the necessities
of an economical administration shall require all parties seem to acquiesce. Nor does there seem to be any material difference
of opinion as to the absence of right in the Government to tax one section of country, or one class of citizens, or one occupation,
for the mere profit of another. "Justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to
the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country."
I have heretofore declared to my fellow-citizens that "in my judgment it is the duty of the Government to extend, as far as
it may be practicable to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair and just protection to all
of the great interests of the whole Union, embracing agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and navigation."
I have also declared my opinion to be "in favor of a tariff for revenue," and that "in adjusting the details of such a tariff
I have sanctioned such moderate discriminating duties as would produce the amount of revenue needed and at the same time afford
reasonable incidental protection to our home industry," and that I was "opposed to a tariff for protection merely, and not
for revenue."

The power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" was an indispensable one to be conferred on the Federal
Government, which without it would possess no means of providing for its own support. In executing this power by levying a
tariff of duties for the support of Government, the raising of revenue should be the object and protection the incident. To
reverse this principle and make protection the object and revenue the incident would be to inflict manifest injustice upon
all other than the protected interests. In levying duties for revenue it is doubtless proper to make such discriminations
within the revenue principle as will afford incidental protection to our home interests. Within the revenue limit there is
a discretion to discriminate; beyond that limit the rightful exercise of the power is not conceded. The incidental protection
afforded to our home interests by discriminations within the revenue range it is believed will be ample. In making discriminations
all our home interests should as far as practicable be equally protected. The largest portion of our people are agriculturists.
Others are employed in manufactures, commerce, navigation, and the mechanic arts. They are all engaged in their respective
pursuits and their joint labors constitute the national or home industry. To tax one branch of this home industry for the
benefit of another would be unjust. No one of these interests can rightfully claim an advantage over the others, or to be
enriched by impoverishing the others. All are equally entitled to the fostering care and protection of the Government. In
exercising a sound discretion in levying discriminating duties within the limit prescribed, care should be taken that it be
done in a manner not to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the toiling millions by taxing lowest the luxuries of life,
or articles of superior quality and high price, which can only be consumed by the wealthy, and highest the necessaries of
life, or articles of coarse quality and low price, which the poor and great mass of our people must consume. The burdens of
government should as far as practicable be distributed justly and equally among all classes of our population. These general
views, long entertained on this subject, I have deemed it proper to reiterate. It is a subject upon which conflicting interests
of sections and occupations are supposed to exist, and a spirit of mutual concession and compromise in adjusting its details
should be cherished by every part of our widespread country as the only means of preserving harmony and a cheerful acquiescence
of all in the operation of our revenue laws. Our patriotic citizens in every part of the Union will readily submit to the
payment of such taxes as shall be needed for the support of their Government, whether in peace or in war, if they are so levied
as to distribute the burdens as equally as possible among them.

The Republic of Texas has made known her desire to come into our Union, to form a part of our Confederacy and enjoy with us the blessings of liberty
secured and guaranteed by our Constitution. Texas was once a part of our country-was unwisely ceded away to a foreign power-is
now independent, and possesses an undoubted right to dispose of a part or the whole of her territory and to merge her sovereignty
as a separate and independent state in ours. I congratulate my country that by an act of the late Congress of the United States
the assent of this Government has been given to the reunion, and it only remains for the two countries to agree upon the terms
to consummate an object so important to both.

I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. They are independent powers competent
to contract, and foreign nations have no right to interfere with them or to take exceptions to their reunion. Foreign powers
do not seem to appreciate the true character of our Government. Our Union is a confederation of independent States, whose
policy is peace with each other and all the world. To enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional
territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our Government. While the Chief
Magistrate and the popular branch of Congress are elected for short terms by the suffrages of those millions who must in their
own persons bear all the burdens and miseries of war, our Government can not be otherwise than pacific. Foreign powers should
therefore look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend her dominions
by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own, by adding another member to our confederation,
with the consent of that member, thereby diminishing the chances of war and opening to them new and ever-increasing markets
for their products.

To Texas the reunion is important, because the strong protecting arm of our Government would be extended over her, and the
vast resources of her fertile soil and genial climate would be speedily developed, while the safety of New Orleans and of
our whole southwestern frontier against hostile aggression, as well as the interests of the whole Union, would be promoted
by it.

In the earlier stages of our national existence the opinion prevailed with some that our system of confederated States could
not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections have at different times been made to the enlargement
of our boundaries. These objections were earnestly urged when we acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not
well founded. The title of numerous Indian tribes to vast tracts of country has been extinguished; new States have been admitted
into the Union; new Territories have been created and our jurisdiction and laws extended over them. As our population has
expanded, the Union has been cemented and strengthened. As our boundaries have been enlarged and our agricultural population
has been spread over a large surface, our federative system has acquired additional strength and security. It may well be
doubted whether it would not be in greater danger of overthrow if our present population were confined to the comparatively
narrow limits of the original thirteen States than it is now that they are sparsely settled over a more expanded territory.
It is confidently believed that our system may be safely extended to the utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that
as it shall be extended the bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger.

None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent state or becomes an ally or
dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than herself. Is there one among our citizens who would not prefer perpetual
peace with Texas to occasional wars, which so often occur between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not
prefer free intercourse with her to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter her ports or cross her frontiers?
Is there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her citizens to the frontier obstructions which must
occur if she remains out of the Union? Whatever is good or evil in the local institutions of Texas will remain her own whether
annexed to the United States or not. None of the present States will be responsible for them any more than they are for the
local institutions of each other. They have confederated together for certain specified objects. Upon the same principle that
they would refuse to form a perpetual union with Texas because of her local institutions our forefathers would have been prevented
from forming our present Union. Perceiving no valid objection to the measure and many reasons for its adoption vitally affecting
the peace, the safety, and the prosperity of both countries, I shall on the broad principle which formed the basis and produced
the adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow spirit of sectional policy, endeavor by all constitutional, honorable,
and appropriate means to consummate the expressed will of the people and Government of the United States by the reannexation
of Texas to our Union at the earliest practicable period.

Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right of the United States
to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is "clear and
unquestionable," and already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children.
But eighty years ago our population was confined on the west by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period-within the
lifetime, I might say, of some of my hearers-our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the eastern valley of the
Mississippi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its headsprings, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings
of self-government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry
of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction
of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they
have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of which the formation
in that part of our territory can not be long delayed, within the sphere of our federative Union. In the meantime every obligation
imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations should be sacredly respected.

In the management of our foreign relations it will be my aim to observe a careful respect for the rights of other nations,
while our own will be the subject of constant watchfulness. Equal and exact justice should characterize all our intercourse
with foreign countries. All alliances having a tendency to jeopard the welfare and honor of our country or sacrifice any one
of the national interests will be studiously avoided, and yet no opportunity will be lost to cultivate a favorable understanding
with foreign governments by which our navigation and commerce may be extended and the ample products of our fertile soil,
as well as the manufactures of our skillful artisans, find a ready market and remunerating prices in foreign countries.

In taking "care that the laws be faithfully executed," a strict performance of duty will be exacted from all public officers.
From those officers, especially, who are charged with the collection and disbursement of the public revenue will prompt and
rigid accountability be required. Any culpable failure or delay on their part to account for the moneys intrusted to them
at the times and in the manner required by law will in every instance terminate the official connection of such defaulting
officer with the Government.

Although in our country the Chief Magistrate must almost of necessity be chosen by a party and stand pledged to its principles
and measures, yet in his official action he should not be the President of a part only, but of the whole people of the United
States. While he executes the laws with an impartial hand, shrinks from no proper responsibility, and faithfully carries out
in the executive department of the Government the principles and policy of those who have chosen him, he should not be unmindful
that our fellow-citizens who have differed with him in opinion are entitled to the full and free exercise of their opinions
and judgments, and that the rights of all are entitled to respect and regard.

Confidently relying upon the aid and assistance of the coordinate departments of the Government in conducting our public affairs,
I enter upon the discharge of the high duties which have been assigned me by the people, again humbly supplicating that Divine
Being who has watched over and protected our beloved country from its infancy to the present hour to continue His gracious
benedictions upon us, that we may continue to be a prosperous and happy people.

The campaign of 1912 pitted four remarkable men against each other for the presidency, all of them with significant reform
backgrounds. William Howard Taft, the incumbent, had the support of the regular Republicans and of some of the old-guard Progressives.
Theodore Roosevelt was backed by most of the Progressives, who had banded together to organize the rump Republican "Bull Moose"
Party. Eugene Debs was the Socialist candidate. And Woodrow Wilson, the enlightened governor of New Jersey, ex-professor of
political science and ex-president of Princeton University, was the choice of the Democrats. Failing at first to find an issue
with which to stir the voters, Wilson was persuaded by Louis D. Brandeis to stress the problem of the trusts, and with his
oratorical gifts he was able to turn it into what was almost a one-man crusade. A portion of Wilson's campaign speech at Lincoln,
Nebraska, delivered on October 5, 1912, is reprinted here.

We are not going to discuss tonight the sympathies, the susceptibilities, the enthusiasms of the several men who are seeking
your suffrages for President of the United States. I am perfectly ready to believe and will admit for the sake of argument
that Mr. Roosevelt's heart and soul are committed to that part of the third-term program which contains those hopeful plans
of human betterment in which so many noble men and women in this country have enlisted their sympathies and their energies.

I am not here to criticize anybody who has been drawn to that party because of that part of the program. But I want to call
their attention to the fact that you can't have a program that you can carry out through a resisting and unsuitable medium,
and that the thing that it is absolutely necessary for every candid voter to remember with regard to the third party is that
the means of government, the means of getting the things that this country needs, are exactly the same on that side that they
are on the side where Mr. Taft seeks the suffrages of the country.

Because, while the party of Mr. Taft says in its platform that monopoly ought not to exist, the section of the Republican
Party that is following Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the statement that monopoly ought to be adopted by the law, and by regulation
should be the governing force in the development of American industry. So that all that the third party asks of the monopolists
is that they should cooperate, and the only hope of a program of human uplift from that party is that the monopolists will
cooperate.

Have you got any hopes in that direction? Don't you know what the Republican Party has provided you with up to this time?
I have taken special pains to clear from my own mind, at any rate, the Republican conception of government. That conception
is that the people cannot organize their opinion in such fashion as to control their own government. And that, therefore,
it is necessary constantly to consult those whose material interests in the development of the country are larger than anybody
else's, and then, through the hands of these trustees, administer the government, not through the people but for the people.

I am perfectly ready to believe -- knowing some of the men concerned as I do, I must believe --that a great many men now engaged
in the promotion of monopoly in this country really wish to see the United States prosperous, and really desire to adopt the
means that will make it prosperous. But they are not willing to let anybody else yield the means of prosperity except themselves.
I wonder at the frame of mind which makes them believe that they are the trustees of political discretion in this country,
but I am willing to admit for the sake of argument that that is their candid and deliberate judgment.

What we have to fight, therefore, is not a body of deliberate enemies, it may be, but a body of mistaken men. And what I want
to point out to you is that Mr. Roosevelt subscribes to the judgment of these mistaken men as to the influences which should
govern America. That is the serious part of it. Mr. Roosevelt's judgment has been captured. Mr. Roosevelt's idea of the way
in which the industries of this country ought to be controlled has been captured. He does not propose to set us free. He proposes
to use monopoly in order to make us happy. And the project is one of those projects which all history cries out against as
impossible.

The Democratic platform is the only platform which says that private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, and any man
who does not subscribe to that opinion does not know the way to set the people of the United States free, and to serve humanity.
All that Mr. Roosevelt is asking you to do is to elect him president of the board of trustees. I do not care how wise, how
patriotic the trustees may be; I have never heard of any group of men in whose hands I am willing to put the liberties of
America in trust. And, therefore, I am not in this campaign engaged in doubting any man's motives. I merely want to point
out that these gentlemen are not proposing the methods of liberty but are proposing the methods of control. A control among
a free people is intolerable.

I have been very much interested the last day or two in having described to me the industries of some of these smaller Western
cities. I known in Indiana, for example, town after town was pointed out to me that still has the American characteristic,
in which there are factories upon factories owned by men who live in the place -- independent enterprises still unabsorbed
by the great economic combinations which have become so threateningly inhuman in our economic organization -- and it seems
to me that these are outposts and symbols of the older and freer America. And after I had traveled through that series of
towns and met the sturdy people that live in them, I entered in the city of Gary, which is a little way outside of Chicago,
and realized that I had come from the older America into the newer America. But this was a town owned and built by a single
monopolistic corporation. And I wondered which kind of America the people of America, if they could see this picture as I
saw it, would choose?

Which do you want? Do you want to live in a town patronized by some great combination of capitalists who pick it out as a
suitable place to plant their industry and draw you into their employment? Or do you want to see your sons and your brothers
and your husbands build up business for themselves under the protection of laws which make it impossible for any giant, however
big, to crush them and put them out of business, so that they can match their wits here in the midst of a free country with
any captain of industry or merchant of finance to be found anywhere in the world, and put every man who now assumes to control
and promote monopoly upon his mettle to beat them at initiative, at economy, at the organization of business, and the cheap
production of salable goods? Which do you want?

Why, gentlemen, America is never going to submit to monopoly. America is never going to choose thralldom instead of freedom.
Look what there is to decide! There is the tariff question. Can the tariff question be decided in favor of the people of the
United States so long as the monopolies are the chief counselors at Washington? There is the great currency question. You
know how difficult it is to move your crops every year. And I tremble, I must frankly tell you, to think of the bumper crops
that are now coming from our fields, because they are going to need enormous bodies of cash to move them.

You have got to get that cash by calling in your loans and embarrassing people in every center of commercial activity, because
there isn't cash enough under our inelastic currency to lend itself to this instrumentality. And are we going to settle the
currency question so long as the government of the United States listens only to the counsel of those who command the banking
situation in the United States? You can't solve the tariff, you can't solve the currency question under the domination which
is proposed by one branch of the Republican Party and tolerated by the other.

Then there is the great question of conservation. What is our fear about conservation? The hands that will be stretched out
to monopolize our forests, to preempt the use of our great power-producing streams, the hands that will be stretched into
the bowels of the earth to take possession of the great riches that lie hidden in Alaska and elsewhere in the incomparable
domain of the United States are the hands of monopoly. And is this thing merely to be regulated? Is this thing to be legalized?
Are these men to continue to stand at the elbow of government and tell us how we are to save ourselves from the very things
that we fear? You can't settle the question of conservation while monopoly exists if monopoly is close to the ears of those
who govern. And the question of conservation is a great deal bigger than the question of saving our forests and our mineral
resources and our waters. It is as big as the life and happiness and strength and elasticity and hope of our people.

The government of the United States has now to look out upon her people and see what they need, what should be done for them.
Why, gentlemen, there are tasks waiting the government of the United States which it cannot perform until every pulse of that
government beats in unison with the needs and the desires of the whole body of the American people. Shall we not give the
people access of sympathy, access of counsel, access of authority to the instrumentalities which are to be indispensable to
their lives?

When I think of the great things to be accomplished and then think of the danger that there is that the people of the United
States will not choose free instruments to accomplish them, then I tremble to think of the verdict that may be rendered on
the 5th of November. But when you look around when going through America, as I have recently been going through it, your heart
rises again. Why, two years ago when I was running for governor in New Jersey, I used to come away from public meetings with
a certain burden on my heart, because I knew I was not mistaken in feeling that I had seen in the faces and felt in the atmosphere
of the great meetings that I addressed a certain sense of foreboding and anxiety as a people who were anxious about their
future.

But I haven't seen anything of that kind in the year 1912. The people of the United States now know what they intend to do.
They intend to take charge of their own affairs again and they see the way to do it. Great outpourings like this are not in
compliment to an individual; they are in demonstration of a purpose. And all I have to say for the Democratic candidate for
the presidency is that I pray God he may be shown the way not to disappoint the expectations of such people.

Only you can show him the way. You can't do it by proxy. You must determine the interests of your own life and then find spokesmen
for those interests who will speak them as fairly as men have learned how to speak in Nebraska. The great emancipation which
has been wrought for you by the fight for progressive democracy which has gone on from splendid stage to splendid stage in
this state is that it has raised up for you men who fearlessly speak the truth. And that is not true of all parts of the country.

Why, there are parts of the country where I am considered brave if I speak in words what every man and woman in the audience
knows to be true. Now, I have never known what it was to exercise courage when I knew that the stars in all their courses
were fighting my way. Do you suppose a man needs be courageous to speak the truth, to attach his puny force to the great voice
of the country which is truth itself? A man would be a coward that wouldn't speak the truth. A man would be a fool who didn't
see that the only puissance in human affairs was the irresistible force of truth itself, and men are weak in proportion as
they are mistaken; they are weak in proportion as their judgments are misled; they are weak in proportion as they do not see
the practical terms into which the truth can be translated. But they are not courageous when they merely tell the truth, because,
if they lie because they were afraid, do you suppose they would have very comfortable moments when they withdraw into the
privacy of their own family?

I wonder how some men sleep of nights because they deceive themselves and deceive others all day long, and then actually go
home and go to sleep. I don't know what their dreams can be. And they speak the things that they know are not true because
they are afraid of something.

Fear is abroad in free America. There are men who dare not undertake certain business enterprises because they know that they
would be crushed. There are men who dare not speak certain opinions because they know that they would be boycotted in influential
circles upon which their credit and their advancement in their business depends.

Do you suppose that it is singular that men should rise up and fight through half a generation as your own champions have
fought in order to dispel that fear? The only way to dispel fear is to bring the things that you are afraid of out in the
open and challenge them there to meet the great moral force of the people of the United States. So that if these gentlemen
will come out and avow their purposes, they will destroy all possibility of realizing those purposes.

One of the fine things of our time is that the whole game is disclosed. We now know the processes of monopoly, and we therefore
know the processes of law by which monopoly can be destroyed. They have shown their hands and we know how to stay their use
of illegitimate power.

Will we do them any damage? I tell you frankly that if I thought that any considerable portion of the enterprising men of
America would be injured by the policies that I am interested in, I would hesitate. But I am clear in the conviction that
to set the people of the United States free is to set the big enterprises free along with the little ones, because I have
never heard of any business conditions which were dependent upon the subservience of great business, of enterprising businessmen.
If you have to be subservient, you aren't even making the rich fellows as rich as they might be, because you are not adding
your originative force to the extraordinary production of wealth in America.

America is as rich, not as Wall Street, not as the financial centers in Chicago and St. Louis and San Francisco; it is as
rich as the people that make its centers rich. And if those people hesitate in their enterprise, cowering in the face of power,
hesitate to originate designs of their own, then the very fountains which make these places abound in wealth are dried up
at the source; so that by setting the little men of America free you are not damaging the giants. You are merely making them
behave like human beings.

Now, a giant ought to have more human nature in him than a Pygmy, and we want to reread the Decalogue to these big men who
may not have heard it in some time. And by moralizing, we are going to set them free and their business free.

It may be that certain things will happen, for monopoly in this country is carrying a body of water such as no body of men
ought to be asked to carry. And when by regulated competition -- that is to say, fair competition, competition that fights
fair -- they are put upon their mettle, they will have to economize in their processes of business, and they can't economize
unless they drop that water. I do not know how to squeeze the water out but they will get rid of it, if you will put them
on their mettle. They will have to get rid of it, or those of us who don't carry tanks will outrun them in the race. Put all
the business of America upon the footing of economy and efficiency, and then let the race be to the strongest and the efficient.

So that our program is a program of prosperity, only it is a program of prosperity that is a little more pervasive to the
present program, and pervasive prosperity is more fruitful than that which is narrow and restrictive.

I congratulate the monopolists of the United States that they are not going to have their way, because, quite contrary to
the old theory, the people of the United States are wiser than they are. The people of the United States understand the United
States as these gentlemen do not, and if they will only give us leave, we will not only make them rich but we will make them
happy, because then our consciences will have less to carry. They are waking up to this fact, ladies and gentlemen. The businessmen
of this country are not deluded, and not all of the big business of this country are deluded.

Some men who have been led into wrong practice, who have been led into the practice of monopoly because that seemed to be
the drift and inevitable method of supremacy of their times, are just as ready as we are to turn about and adopt the processes
of freedom, because American hearts beat in a lot of those men just as they beat under our jackets. They will be as glad to
be free as we have been to set them free. And then the splendid force which has led to the things that hurt us will lead to
the things than benefit us.

We are coming to a common understanding, and only a common understanding is the tolerable basis of a free government. I congratulate
you, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that you are now coming to that point of fruition of which you have dreamed and for
which you have planned in Nebraska for more than half a generation. . . .

What we propose, therefore, in this program of freedom, is a program of general advantage. Almost every monopoly that has
resisted extinction has resisted the real interests of its own stockholders. And it has been very, very slow business convincing
those who were responsible for the business of the country that that was the fact. After the 4th of March next, therefore,
we are going to get together; we are going to stop serving special interests, and we are going to stop setting one interest
up against another interest. We are not going to champion one set of people against another set of people, but we are going
to see what common counsel can accomplish for the happiness and redemption of America.

In the popular mind the Emancipation Proclamation transformed the Civil War from a struggle to preserve the Union into a crusade for human freedom. But at the time of its issuance, its actual provisions
had already largely been enacted into law by Congress, which had provided for the freeing of slaves of owners hostile to the
Union, the prohibition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the territories, and the freeing of slave-soldiers. The
Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were
under Confederate control; in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized. It did,
however, tremendously boost Union morale, breed disaffection in the South, and bolster support for the Union cause in Europe.
The real significance of the document lay in the political factors that brought it to fruition and in the delicate political
balance it preserved. By the summer of 1862, President Abraham Lincoln had exhausted all other schemes short of full emancipation.
African Americans in the North had objected to his offer of colonization; the border states disapproved of his proposal of
compensated emancipation; and Abolitionists were demanding a more radical course. The military position of the North had deteriorated
when on July 22, 1862, Lincoln called together his cabinet to discuss emancipation. The president later described this fateful
day in a conversation with the painter Frank Carpenter. “Things had gone on from bad to worse,” said Lincoln, “until I felt
that we had reached the end of our rope.We had about played our last card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game!”
Lincoln had prepared a draft of the proclamation prior to the cabinet meeting, “without consultation with or the knowledge
of the Cabinet.” The majority of the cabinet were enthusiastic, including Secretary of State William Seward, who, however,
raised an objection to its timing. Seward argued that Lincoln should postpone the proclamation until the Union had achieved
some military success, otherwise “it may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help.” Lincoln
heeded this advice. After the decisive Battle of Antietam (September 17) stopped the Confederate advance upon Washington,
D.C., Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation as reprinted here was issued on January 1,
1863.

Whereas, on the 22nd day of September, in the year of our Lord 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1863, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part
of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever
free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize
and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.

That the executive will, on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if
any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any
state or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members
chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such states shall have participated shall, in the
absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then
in rebellion against the United States.

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as a commander in
chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of
the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January,
in the year of our Lord 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of 100 days
from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively,
are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James,
Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West
Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including
the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation
were not issued.

And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the United
States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense;
and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the
United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke
the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Source: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America from the Organization of the Government in 1863, vol. 12, George P. Sanger, ed., 1865, pp. 1268-1269.

Thomas Jefferson believed firmly in the separation of church and state. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he had warned against the interference of the state in matters of religious belief. "Our rulers can have authority over such
natural rights, only as we have submitted to them," he wrote in 1783. "The rights of conscience we never submitted. . . .
We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god." In the following letter to P. H. Wendover,
written on March 13, 1815, Jefferson examined the other side of the matter declaring that the interference of the church in
affairs of state, under the guise of political sermons, is equally menacing.

Your favor of January 30 was received after long delay on the road, and I have to thank you for the volume of discourses which
you have been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with great satisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his
estimate of the character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness of defensive war. I consider the war, with him,
as "made on good advice," that is, for just causes, and its dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our
patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong
and the weak parts of our republican institutions and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule
of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the natural rights of expatriation and of a common property in the ocean,
and raised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery and liberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and
by sea, the wisdom of our institutions, and their observance of justice, entitled us to in the eyes of the world.

All this Mr. McLeod has well proved, and from these sources of argument particularly which belong to his profession. On one
question only I differ from him, and it is that which constitutes the subject of his first discourse, the right of discussing
public affairs in the pulpit. I add the last words, because I admit the right in general conversation and in writing; in which
last form it has been exercised in the valuable book you have now favored me with.

The mass of human concerns, moral and physical, is so vast, the field of knowledge requisite for man to conduct them to the
best advantage is so extensive, that no human being can acquire the whole himself, and much less in that degree necessary
for the instruction of others. It has of necessity, then, been distributed into different departments, each of which, singly,
may give occupation enough to the whole time and attention of a single individual. Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers
of mathematics, of natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of government, etc. Religion, too, is
a separate department, and happens to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.

Collections of men associate together, under the name of congregations, and employ a religious teacher of the particular sect
of opinions of which they happen to be, and contribute to make up a stipend as a compensation for the trouble of delivering
them, at such periods as they agree on, lessons in the religion they profess. If they want instruction in other sciences or
arts, they apply to other instructors; and this is generally the business of early life. But I suppose there is not an instance
of a single congregation which has employed their preacher for the mixed purposes of lecturing them from the pulpit in chemistry,
in medicine, in law, in the science and principles of government, or in anything but religion exclusively. Whenever, therefore,
preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities,
on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving
their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want,
or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art or science. In choosing our pastor we look to
his religious qualifications, without inquiring into his physical or political dogmas, with which we mean to have nothing
to do. I am aware that arguments may be found which may twist a thread of politics into the cord of religious duties. So may
they for every other branch of human art or science.

Thus, for example, it is a religious duty to obey the laws of our country; the teacher of religion, therefore, must instruct
us in those laws, that we may know how to obey them. It is a religious duty to assist our sick neighbors; the preacher must,
therefore, teach us medicine, that we may do it understandingly. It is a religious duty to preserve our own health; our religious
teacher, then, must tell us what dishes are wholesome, and give us recipes in cookery, that we may learn how to prepare them.
And so, ingenuity, by generalizing more and more, may amalgamate all the branches of science into any one of them, and the
physician who is paid to visit the sick may give a sermon instead of medicine, and the merchant to whom money is sent for
a hat may send a handkerchief instead of it.

But notwithstanding this possible confusion of all sciences into one, common sense draws lines between them sufficiently distinct
for the general purposes of life, and no one is at a loss to understand that a recipe in medicine or cookery, or a demonstration
in geometry is not a lesson in religion. I do not deny that a congregation may, if they please, agree with their preacher
that he shall instruct them in medicine also, or law, or politics. Then, lectures in these, from the pulpit, become not only
a matter of right, but of duty also. But this must be with the consent of every individual; because the association being
voluntary, the mere majority has no right to apply the contributions of the minority to purposes unspecified in the agreement
of the congregation.

I agree, too, that on all other occasions, the preacher has the right, equally with every other citizen, to express his sentiments,
in speaking or writing, on the subjects of medicine, law, politics, etc., his leisure time being his own, and his congregation
not obliged to listen to his conversation or to read his writings; and no one would have regretted more than myself, had any
scruple as to this right withheld from us the valuable discourses which have led to the expression of an opinion as to the
true limits of the right. I feel my portion of indebtedness to the reverend author for the distinguished learning, the logic,
and the eloquence with which he has proved that religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on
which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.

These are my views on this question. They are in opposition to those of the highly respected and able preacher, and are, therefore,
the more doubtingly offered. Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate
and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution not to cherish
its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves.

Unaccustomed to reserve or mystery in the expression of my opinions, I have opened myself frankly on a question suggested
by your letter and present. And although I have not the honor of your acquaintance, this mark of attention, and still more
the sentiments of esteem so kindly expressed in your letter, are entitled to a confidence that observations not intended for
the public will not be ushered to their notice, as has happened to me sometimes. Tranquillity, at my age, is the balm of life.
While I know I am safe in the honor and charity of a McLeod, I do not wish to be cast forth to the Marats, the Dantons, and
the Robespierres of the priesthood; I mean the Parishes, the Ogdens, and the Gardiners of Massachusetts.

James Madison wrote a number of short political essays reflecting his concern for the new government he had helped to create
and for the direction it would take in the future. The sovereign power of the United States resided in its people, he felt,
and only through an enlightened public could the government seek guidance for its tasks. Madison's awareness of the unpredictability
of the public mind is reflected in the following essay, which first appeared in the National Gazette on December 19, 1791, long before the public opinion polls of today had come into existence.

Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.

As there are cases where the public opinion must be obeyed by the government, so there are cases where, not being fixed, it
may be influenced by the government. This distinction, if kept in view, would prevent or decide many debates on the respect
due from the government to the sentiments of the people.

In proportion as government is influenced by opinion, it must be so by whatever influences opinion. This decides the question
concerning a constitutional Declaration of Rights, which requires an influence on government by becoming a part of public
opinion.

The larger a country, the less easy for its real opinion to be ascertained, and the less difficult to be counterfeited; when
ascertained or presumed, the more respectable it is in the eyes of individuals. This is favorable to the authority of government.
For the same reason, the more extensive a country, the more insignificant is each individual in his own eyes. This may be
unfavorable to liberty.

Whatever facilitates a general intercourse of sentiments, as good roads, domestic commerce, a free press, and particularly
a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people, and representatives going from and returning among every
part of them, is equivalent to a contraction of territorial limits, and is favorable to liberty, where these may be too extensive.

Source: Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Fourth President of the United States: "Public Opinion," vol. 4, 1865.

Compensated emancipation was a scheme to allow the government to free the slaves and reimburse slave-owners. The Republican platform of 1860 recognized it as a desirable solution to the slavery issue. President
Lincoln initially viewed it as the best solution because it was gradual and would distribute the financial burden of emancipation.
In addition, he hoped the plan would appeal to the border states. In response to growing antislavery sentiment, Lincoln sent
the following special message to Congress urging a joint resolution on compensated emancipation on March 6, 1862. Congress
approved the resolution, but the border states failed to support it. The plan was realized only in the District of Columbia
by an act of Congress on April 16, 1862.

I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be substantially as follows:

Resolved, that the United States ought to cooperate with any state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state
pecuniary aid, to be used by such state, in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced
by such change of system.

If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the country, there is the end; but
if it does command such approval, I deem it of importance that the states and people immediately interested should be at once
distinctly notified of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The Federal government
would find its highest interest in such a measure as one of the most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of
the existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence
of some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave states north of such part will then say, "The Union for which
we have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with the Southern section." To deprive them of this hope substantially
ends the rebellion, and the initiation of emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the states initiating it.

The point is not that all the states tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate emancipation but that, while the offer is equally made
to all, the more northern shall by such initiation make it certain to the more southern that in no event will the former ever
join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say "initiation" because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden emancipation
is better for all. In the mere financial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress with the census tables and Treasury reports
before him can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation,
all the slaves in any named state. Such a proposition on the part of the general government sets up no claim of a right by
Federal authority to interfere with slavery within state limits, referring, as it does, the absolute control of the subject
in each case to the state and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of perfectly free choice with
them.

In the annual message last December, I thought fit to say "the Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means
must be employed." I said this not hastily but deliberately. War has been made and continues to be an indispensable means
to this end. A practical reacknowledgment of the national authority would render the war unnecessary, and it would at once
cease. If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue; and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which
may attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem indispensable or may obviously promise great efficiency
toward ending the struggle must and will come.

The proposition now made (though an offer only), I hope it may be esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration
tendered would not be of more value to the states and private persons concerned than are the institution and property in it
in the present aspect of affairs.

While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical
measure, it is recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practical results. In full view of my great responsibility
to my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the subject.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 6, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 68-69.

In obedience of the mandate of my countrymen I am about to dedicate myself to their service under the sanction of a solemn
oath. Deeply moved by the expression of confidence and personal attachment which has called me to this service, I am sure
my gratitude can make no better return than the pledge I now give before God and these witnesses of unreserved and complete
devotion to the interests and welfare of those who have honored me.

I deem it fitting on this occasion, while indicating the opinion I hold concerning public questions of present importance,
to also briefly refer to the existence of certain conditions and tendencies among our people which seem to menace the integrity
and usefulness of their Government.

While every American citizen must contemplate with the utmost pride and enthusiasm the growth and expansion of our country,
the sufficiency of our institutions to stand against the rudest shocks of violence, the wonderful thrift and enterprise of
our people, and the demonstrated superiority of our free government, it behooves us to constantly watch for every symptom
of insidious infirmity that threatens our national vigor.

The strong man who in the confidence of sturdy health courts the sternest activities of life and rejoices in the hardihood
of constant labor may still have lurking near his vitals the unheeded disease that dooms him to sudden collapse.

It can not be doubted that our stupendous achievements as a people and our country's robust strength have given rise to heedlessness
of those laws governing our national health which we can no more evade than human life can escape the laws of God and nature.

Manifestly nothing is more vital to our supremacy as a nation and to the beneficent purposes of our Government than a sound
and stable currency. Its exposure to degradation should at once arouse to activity the most enlightened statesmanship, and
the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt
and conservative precaution.

In dealing with our present embarrassing situation as related to this subject we will be wise if we temper our confidence
and faith in our national strength and resources with the frank concession that even these will not permit us to defy with
impunity the inexorable laws of finance and trade. At the same time, in our efforts to adjust differences of opinion we should
be free from intolerance or passion, and our judgments should be unmoved by alluring phrases and unvexed by selfish interests.

I am confident that such an approach to the subject will result in prudent and effective remedial legislation. In the meantime,
so far as the executive branch of the Government can intervene, none of the powers with which it is invested will be withheld
when their exercise is deemed necessary to maintain our national credit or avert financial disaster.

Closely related to the exaggerated confidence in our country's greatness which tends to a disregard of the rules of national
safety, another danger confronts us not less serious. I refer to the prevalence of a popular disposition to expect from the
operation of the Government especial and direct individual advantages.

The verdict of our voters which condemned the injustice of maintaining protection for protection's sake enjoins upon the people's
servants the duty of exposing and destroying the brood of kindred evils which are the unwholesome progeny of paternalism. This is the bane of republican institutions and the constant peril of our government by the people. It degrades to the purposes
of wily craft the plan of rule our fathers established and bequeathed to us as an object of our love and veneration. It perverts
the patriotic sentiments of our countrymen and tempts them to pitiful calculation of the sordid gain to be derived from their
Government's maintenance. It undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental
favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship.

The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and
cheerfully support their Government its functions do not include the support of the people.

The acceptance of this principle leads to a refusal of bounties and subsidies, which burden the labor and thrift of a portion
of our citizens to aid ill-advised or languishing enterprises in which they have no concern. It leads also to a challenge
of wild and reckless pension expenditure, which overleaps the bounds of grateful recognition of patriotic service and prostitutes
to vicious uses the people's prompt and generous impulse to aid those disabled in their country's defense.

Every thoughtful American must realize the importance of checking at its beginning any tendency in public or private station
to regard frugality and economy as virtues which we may safely outgrow. The toleration of this idea results in the waste of
the people's money by their chosen servants and encourages prodigality and extravagance in the home life of our countrymen.

Under our scheme of government the waste of public money is a crime against the citizen, and the contempt of our people for
economy and frugality in their personal affairs deplorably saps the strength and sturdiness of our national character.

It is a plain dictate of honesty and good government that public expenditures should be limited by public necessity, and that
this should be measured by the rules of strict economy; and it is equally clear that frugality among the people is the best
guaranty of a contented and strong support of free institutions.

One mode of the misappropriation of public funds is avoided when appointments to office, instead of being the rewards of partisan
activity, are awarded to those whose efficiency promises a fair return of work for the compensation paid to them. To secure
the fitness and competency of appointees to office and remove from political action the demoralizing madness for spoils, civil-service
reform has found a place in our public policy and laws. The benefits already gained through this instrumentality and the further
usefulness it promises entitle it to the hearty support and encouragement of all who desire to see our public service well
performed or who hope for the elevation of political sentiment and the purification of political methods.

The existence of immense aggregations of kindred enterprises and combinations of business interests formed for the purpose
of limiting production and fixing prices is inconsistent with the fair field which ought to be open to every independent activity.
Legitimate strife in business should not be superseded by an enforced concession to the demands of combinations that have
the power to destroy, nor should the people to be served lose the benefit of cheapness which usually results from wholesome
competition. These aggregations and combinations frequently constitute conspiracies against the interests of the people, and
in all their phases they are unnatural and opposed to our American sense of fairness. To the extent that they can be reached
and restrained by Federal power the General Government should relieve our citizens from their interference and exactions.

Loyalty to the principles upon which our Government rests positively demands that the equality before the law which it guarantees
to every citizen should be justly and in good faith conceded in all parts of the land. The enjoyment of this right follows
the badge of citizenship wherever found, and, unimpaired by race or color, it appeals for recognition to American manliness
and fairness.

Our relations with the Indians located within our border impose upon us responsibilities we can not escape. Humanity and consistency
require us to treat them with forbearance and in our dealings with them to honestly and considerately regard their rights
and interests. Every effort should be made to lead them, through the paths of civilization and education, to self-supporting
and independent citizenship. In the meantime, as the nation's wards, they should be promptly defended against the cupidity
of designing men and shielded from every influence or temptation that retards their advancement.

The people of the United States have decreed that on this day the control of their Government in its legislative and executive
branches shall be given to a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of tariff reform. They
have thus determined in favor of a more just and equitable system of Federal taxation. The agents they have chosen to carry
out their purposes are bound by their promises not less than by the command of their masters to devote themselves unremittingly
to this service.

While there should be no surrender of principle, our task must be undertaken wisely and without heedless vindictiveness. Our
mission is not punishment, but the rectification of wrong. If in lifting burdens from the daily life of our people we reduce
inordinate and unequal advantages too long enjoyed, this is but a necessary incident of our return to right and justice. If
we exact from unwilling minds acquiescence in the theory of an honest distribution of the fund of the governmental beneficence
treasured up for all, we but insist upon a principle which underlies our free institutions. When we tear aside the delusions
and misconceptions which have blinded our countrymen to their condition under vicious tariff laws, we but show them how far
they have been led away from the paths of contentment and prosperity. When we proclaim that the necessity for revenue to support
the Government furnishes the only justification for taxing the people, we announce a truth so plain that its denial would
seem to indicate the extent to which judgment may be influenced by familiarity with perversions of the taxing power. And when
we seek to reinstate the self-confidence and business enterprise of our citizens by discrediting an abject dependence upon
governmental favor, we strive to stimulate those elements of American character which support the hope of American achievement.

Anxiety for the redemption of the pledges which my party has made and solicitude for the complete justification of the trust
the people have reposed in us constrain me to remind those with whom I am to cooperate that we can succeed in doing the work
which has been especially set before us only by the most sincere, harmonious, and disinterested effort. Even if insuperable
obstacles and opposition prevent the consummation of our task, we shall hardly be excused; and if failure can be traced to
our fault or neglect we may be sure the people will hold us to a swift and exacting accountability.

The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States not only impressively defines the
great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as the rule by which my official conduct
must be guided. I shall to the best of my ability and within my sphere of duty preserve the Constitution by loyally protecting
every grant of Federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and restlessness, and
by enforcing its limitations and reservations in favor of the States and the people.

Fully impressed with the gravity of the duties that confront me and mindful of my weakness, I should be appalled if it were
my lot to bear unaided the responsibilities which await me. I am, however, saved from discouragement when I remember that
I shall have the support and the counsel and cooperation of wise and patriotic men who will stand at my side in Cabinet places
or will represent the people in their legislative halls.

I find also much comfort in remembering that my countrymen are just and generous and in the assurance that they will not condemn
those who by sincere devotion to their service deserve their forbearance and approval.

Above all, I know there is a Supreme Being who rules the affairs of men and whose goodness and mercy have always followed
the American people, and I know He will not turn from us now if we humbly and reverently seek His powerful aid.

Proceeding, fellow-citizens, to that qualification which the Constitution requires before my entrance on the charge again
conferred on me, it is my duty to express the deep sense I entertain of this new proof of confidence from my fellow-citizens
at large, and the zeal with which it inspires me so to conduct myself as may best satisfy their just expectations.

On taking this station on a former occasion I declared the principles on which I believed it my duty to administer the affairs
of our Commonwealth. My conscience tells me I have on every occasion acted up to that declaration according to its obvious
import and to the understanding of every candid mind.

In the transaction of your foreign affairs we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of
those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was
lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that
conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our
moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments
and wars to bridle others.

At home, fellow-citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These, covering our land with officers and opening
our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which once entered is scarcely to be
restrained from reaching successively every article of property and produce. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which
had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if
they had any merit, the State authorities might adopt them instead of others less approved.

The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid chiefly by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries
to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboard and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile
citizens, it may be the pleasure and the pride of an American to ask, What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a
tax gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the Government, to fulfill
contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply
such a surplus to our public debts as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected the
revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition of it among the States and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution,
be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State.
In time of war, if injustice by ourselves or others must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be by increased
population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses
of the year without encroaching on the rights of future generations by burthening them with the debts of the past. War will
then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.

I have said, fellow-citizens, that the income reserved had enabled us to extend our limits, but that extension may possibly
pay for itself before we are called on, and in the meantime may keep down the accruing interest; in all events, it will replace
the advances we shall have made. I know that the acquisition of Louisiana had been disapproved by some from a candid apprehension
that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle
may operate effectively? The larger our association the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view is it not
better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children than by strangers of another
family? With which should we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of
the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but
have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged
by the several religious societies.

The aboriginal inhabitants of these countries I have regarded with the commiseration their history inspires. Endowed with
the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country which left
them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of overflowing population from other regions directed itself on these shores;
without power to divert or habits to contend against it, they have been overwhelmed by the current or driven before it; now
reduced within limits too narrow for the hunter's state, humanity enjoins us to teach them agriculture and the domestic arts;
to encourage them to that industry which alone can enable them to maintain their place in existence and to prepare them in
time for that state of society which to bodily comforts adds the improvement of the mind and morals. We have therefore liberally
furnished them with the implements of husbandry and household use; we have placed among them instructors in the arts of first
necessity, and they are covered with the aegis of the law against aggressors from among ourselves.

But the endeavors to enlighten them on the fate which awaits their present course of life, to induce them to exercise their
reason, follow its dictates, and change their pursuits with the change of circumstances have powerful obstacles to encounter;
they are combated by the habits of their bodies, prejudices of their minds, ignorance, pride, and the influence of interested
and crafty individuals among them who feel themselves something in the present order of things and fear to become nothing
in any other. These persons inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ancestors; that whatsoever they did
must be done through all time; that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel in their physical, moral, or
political condition is perilous innovation; that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them, ignorance being safety
and knowledge full of danger; in short, my friends, among them also is seen the action and counteraction of good sense and
of bigotry; they too have their antiphilosophists who find an interest in keeping things in their present state, who dread
reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the ascendancy of habit over the duty of improving our reason and obeying
its mandates.

In giving these outlines I do not mean, fellow-citizens, to arrogate to myself the merit of the measures. That is due, in
the first place, to the reflecting character of our citizens at large, who, by the weight of public opinion, influence and
strengthen the public measures. It is due to the sound discretion with which they select from among themselves those to whom
they confide the legislative duties. It is due to the zeal and wisdom of the characters thus selected, who lay the foundations
of public happiness in wholesome laws, the execution of which alone remains for others, and it is due to the able and faithful
auxiliaries, whose patriotism has associated them with me in the executive functions.

During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us,
charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and
science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. They might, indeed,
have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved to and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood
and defamation, but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been
left to find their punishment in the public indignation.

Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made, whether freedom of discussion, unaided
by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth-whether a government conducting itself in the true
spirit of its constitution, with zeal and purity, and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness,
can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; you have witnessed the scene; our fellow-citizens
looked on, cool and collected; they saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their
public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable
to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the control of
his own affairs.

No inference is here intended that the laws provided by the States against false and defamatory publications should not be
enforced; he who has time renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity in reforming these abuses by the salutary
coercions of the law; but the experiment is noted to prove that, since truth and reason have maintained their ground against
false opinions in league with false facts, the press, confined to truth, needs no other legal restraint; the public judgment
will correct false reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties; and no other definite line can be drawn between
the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule
would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion.

Contemplating the union of sentiment now manifested so generally as auguring harmony and happiness to our future course, I
offer to our country sincere congratulations. With those, too, not yet rallied to the same point the disposition to do so
is gaining strength; facts are piercing through the veil drawn over them, and our doubting brethren will at length see that
the mass of their fellow-citizens with whom they can not yet resolve to act as to principles and measures, think as they think
and desire what they desire; that our wish as well as theirs is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public
good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained,
and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his father's. When
satisfied of these views it is not in human nature that they should not approve and support them. In the meantime let us cherish
them with patient affection, let us do them justice, and more than justice, in all competitions of interest; and we need not
doubt that truth, reason, and their own interests will at length prevail, will gather them into the fold of their country,
and will complete that entire union of opinion which gives to a nation the blessing of harmony and the benefit of all its
strength.

I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow-citizens have again called me, and shall proceed in the spirit of those
principles which they have approved. I fear not that any motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion
which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice, but the weaknesses of human nature and the limits of my own understanding
will produce errors of judgment sometimes injurious to your interests. I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence which I
have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall
need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and
planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence
and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will
so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result
in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

When we assembled here on the 4th of March, 1897, there was great anxiety with regard to our currency and credit. None exists
now. Then our Treasury receipts were inadequate to meet the current obligations of the Government. Now they are sufficient
for all public needs, and we have a surplus instead of a deficit. Then I felt constrained to convene the Congress in extraordinary
session to devise revenues to pay the ordinary expenses of the Government. Now I have the satisfaction to announce that the
Congress just closed has reduced taxation in the sum of $41,000,000. Then there was deep solicitude because of the long depression
in our manufacturing, mining, agricultural, and mercantile industries and the consequent distress of our laboring population.
Now every avenue of production is crowded with activity, labor is well employed, and American products find good markets at
home and abroad.

Our diversified productions, however, are increasing in such unprecedented volume as to admonish us of the necessity of still
further enlarging our foreign markets by broader commercial relations. For this purpose reciprocal trade arrangements with
other nations should in liberal spirit be carefully cultivated and promoted.

The national verdict of 1896 has for the most part been executed. Whatever remains unfulfilled is a continuing obligation
resting with undiminished force upon the Executive and the Congress. But fortunate as our condition is, its permanence can
only be assured by sound business methods and strict economy in national administration and legislation. We should not permit
our great prosperity to lead us to reckless ventures in business or profligacy in public expenditures. While the Congress
determines the objects and the sum of appropriations, the officials of the executive departments are responsible for honest
and faithful disbursement, and it should be their constant care to avoid waste and extravagance.

Honesty, capacity, and industry are nowhere more indispensable than in public employment. These should be fundamental requisites
to original appointment and the surest guaranties against removal.

Four years ago we stood on the brink of war without the people knowing it and without any preparation or effort at preparation
for the impending peril. I did all that in honor could be done to avert the war, but without avail. It became inevitable;
and the Congress at its first regular session, without party division, provided money in anticipation of the crisis and in
preparation to meet it. It came. The result was signally favorable to American arms and in the highest degree honorable to
the Government. It imposed upon us obligations from which we cannot escape and from which it would be dishonorable to seek
escape. We are now at peace with the world, and it is my fervent prayer that if differences arise between us and other powers
they may be settled by peaceful arbitration and that hereafter we may be spared the horrors of war.

Intrusted by the people for a second time with the office of President, I enter upon its administration appreciating the great
responsibilities which attach to this renewed honor and commission, promising unreserved devotion on my part to their faithful
discharge and reverently invoking for my guidance the direction and favor of Almighty God. I should shrink from the duties
this day assumed if I did not feel that in their performance I should have the co-operation of the wise and patriotic men
of all parties. It encourages me for the great task which I now undertake to believe that those who voluntarily committed
to me the trust imposed upon the Chief Executive of the Republic will give to me generous support in my duties to "preserve,
protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States" and to "care that the laws be faithfully executed." The national
purpose is indicated through a national election. It is the constitutional method of ascertaining the public will. When once
it is registered it is a law to us all, and faithful observance should follow its decrees.

Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and, fortunately, we have them in every part of our beloved country. We are reunited.
Sectionalism has disappeared. Division on public questions can no longer be traced by the war maps of 1861. These old differences
less and less disturb the judgment. Existing problems demand the thought and quicken the conscience of the country, and the
responsibility for their presence, as well as for their righteous settlement, rests upon us all-no more upon me than upon
you. There are some national questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude partisanship. Magnifying their difficulties
will not take them off our hands nor facilitate their adjustment. Distrust of the capacity, integrity, and high purposes of
the American people will not be an inspiring theme for future political contests. Dark pictures and gloomy forebodings are
worse than useless. These only becloud, they do not help to point the way of safety and honor. "Hope maketh not ashamed."
The prophets of evil were not the builders of the Republic, nor in its crises since have they saved or served it. The faith
of the fathers was a mighty force in its creation, and the faith of their descendants has wrought its progress and furnished
its defenders. They are obstructionists who despair, and who would destroy confidence in the ability of our people to solve
wisely and for civilization the mighty problems resting upon them. The American people, intrenched in freedom at home, take
their love for it with them wherever they go, and they reject as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our own liberties
by securing the enduring foundations of liberty to others. Our institutions will not deteriorate by extension, and our sense
of justice will not abate under tropic suns in distant seas. As heretofore, so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its fitness
to administer any new estate which events devolve upon it, and in the fear of God will "take occasion by the hand and make
the bounds of freedom wider yet." If there are those among us who would make our way more difficult, we must not be disheartened,
but the more earnestly dedicate ourselves to the task upon which we have rightly entered. The path of progress is seldom smooth.
New things are often found hard to do. Our fathers found them so. We find them so. They are inconvenient. They cost us something.
But are we not made better for the effort and sacrifice, and are not those we serve lifted up and blessed?

We will be consoled, too, with the fact that opposition has confronted every onward movement of the Republic from its opening
hour until now, but without success. The Republic has marched on and on, and its step has exalted freedom and humanity. We
are undergoing the same ordeal as did our predecessors nearly a century ago. We are following the course they blazed. They
triumphed. Will their successors falter and plead organic impotency in the nation? Surely after 125 years of achievement for
mankind we will not now surrender our equality with other powers on matters fundamental and essential to nationality. With
no such purpose was the nation created. In no such spirit has it developed its full and independent sovereignty. We adhere
to the principle of equality among ourselves, and by no act of ours will we assign to ourselves a subordinate rank in the
family of nations.

My fellow-citizens, the public events of the past four years have gone into history. They are too near to justify recital.
Some of them were unforeseen; many of them momentous and far-reaching in their consequences to ourselves and our relations
with the rest of the world. The part which the United States bore so honorably in the thrilling scenes in China, while new
to American life, has been in harmony with its true spirit and best traditions, and in dealing with the results its policy
will be that of moderation and fairness.

We face at this moment a most important question that of the future relations of the United States and Cuba. With our near
neighbors we must remain close friends. The declaration of the purposes of this Government in the resolution of April 20,
1898, must be made good. Ever since the evacuation of the island by the army of Spain, the Executive, with all practicable
speed, has been assisting its people in the successive steps necessary to the establishment of a free and independent government
prepared to assume and perform the obligations of international law which now rest upon the United States under the treaty
of Paris. The convention elected by the people to frame a constitution is approaching the completion of its labors. The transfer
of American control to the new government is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting from our intervention
and the treaty of peace, that I am glad to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy which the legislative branch
of the Government deems essential to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The principles which led to our intervention
require that the fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be adapted to secure a government capable of performing
the duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of observing its international obligations of protecting life
and property, insuring order, safety, and liberty, and conforming to the established and historical policy of the United States
in its relation to Cuba.

The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people must carry with it the guaranties of permanence. We became sponsors
for the pacification of the island, and we remain accountable to the Cubans, no less than to our own country and people, for
the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty, and assured order. Our
enfranchisement of the people will not be completed until free Cuba shall "be a reality, not a name; a perfect entity, not
a hasty experiment bearing within itself the elements of failure."

While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on the 6th of February, 1899, and ratifications were exchanged nearly two
years ago, the Congress has indicated no form of government for the Philippine Islands. It has, however, provided an army
to enable the Executive to suppress insurrection, restore peace, give security to the inhabitants, and establish the authority
of the United States throughout the archipelago. It has authorized the organization of native troops as auxiliary to the regular
force. It has been advised from time to time of the acts of the military and naval officers in the islands, of my action in
appointing civil commissions, of the instructions with which they were charged, of their duties and powers, of their recommendations,
and of their several acts under executive commission, together with the very complete general information they have submitted.
These reports fully set forth the conditions, past and present, in the islands, and the instructions clearly show the principles
which will guide the Executive until the Congress shall, as it is required to do by the treaty, determine "the civil rights
and political status of the native inhabitants." The Congress having added the sanction of its authority to the powers already
possessed and exercised by the Executive under the Constitution, thereby leaving with the Executive the responsibility for
the government of the Philippines, I shall continue the efforts already begun until order shall be restored throughout the
islands, and as fast as conditions permit will establish local governments, in the formation of which the full co-operation
of the people has been already invited, and when established will encourage the people to administer them. The settled purpose,
long ago proclaimed, to afford the inhabitants of the islands self-government as fast as they were ready for it will be pursued
with earnestness and fidelity. Already something has been accomplished in this direction. The Government's representatives,
civil and military, are doing faithful and noble work in their mission of emancipation and merit the approval and support
of their countrymen. The most liberal terms of amnesty have already been communicated to the insurgents, and the way is still
open for those who have raised their arms against the Government for honorable submission to its authority. Our countrymen
should not be deceived. We are not waging war against the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A portion of them are making
war against the United States. By far the greater part of the inhabitants recognize American sovereignty and welcome it as
a guaranty of order and of security for life, property, liberty, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness. To them
full protection will be given. They shall not be abandoned. We will not leave the destiny of the loyal millions the [of] islands
to the disloyal thousands who are in rebellion against the United States. Order under civil institutions will come as soon
as those who now break the peace shall keep it. Force will not be needed or used when those who make war against us shall
make it no more. May it end without further bloodshed, and there be ushered in the reign of peace to be made permanent by
a government of liberty under law!

John Adams sent the following lucid essay to Hezekiah Niles, editor of the Weekly Register, on February 13, 1818, and Niles praised it three weeks later. "Those who delight to trace the early dawnings of the American
Revolution," wrote Niles in an editorial note, ". . . will be grateful for this tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead,
from the pen of such a distinguished co-adjutor and co-patriot, as John Adams." The essay may have produced more than gratitude;
it is thought that it inspired Niles to collect and publish his monumental Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (1822), a leading source of our knowledge of the period.

The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of
the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.
While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy according to the laws and constitution
derived to them from the God of nature, and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray
for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good.
But when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities
of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the Continental Congress and all the thirteen
state congresses, etc.

There might be, and there were, others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments
of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection
was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.

Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in a habitual affection for England as their
mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a
mother) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing, like Lady Macbeth, to "dash their
brains out," it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased and were changed into indignation and horror.

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of
thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely
interesting to humanity to investigate and perpetuate to posterity.

To this end it is greatly to be desired that young gentlemen of letters in all the states, especially in the thirteen original
states, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing, task of searching and collecting all the records,
pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people and compose
them into an independent nation.

The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different; there was so great a variety of religions; they
were composed of so many different nations; their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance; and their intercourse
had been so rare and their knowledge of each other so imperfect that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the
same system of action was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it in so short a time and
by such simple means was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together:
a perfection of mechanism which no artist had ever before effected.

In this research, the glorioles of individual gentlemen and of separate states is of little consequence. The means and the
measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South
America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken
rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice
and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness,
patience, and perseverance through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials, and melancholy disasters they may have
to encounter.

The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings
which contributed to produce the Revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain I have read.
Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable
neighbor Josiah Quincy appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought
to be traced back for 200 years and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should
the principles and feelings of the English and Scots toward the colonies through that whole period ever be forgotten. The
perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and those of America, the next year after the suppression of
the French power in America, came to a crisis and produced an explosion.

It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their
own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America by parliamentary
taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict execution those acts of Parliament
which were well-known by the appellation of the Acts of Trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century--and
some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.

This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which
went on increasing till in 1775 it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.

The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were first and foremost,
before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thatcher; next to him Samuel Adams; next to him John Hancock;
then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock's life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested
sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this I hope will be done by some
younger and abler hand.

Mr. Thatcher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister
at law, in as large practice as anyone in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning,
ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent
as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, "Thatcher was not born a plebeian,
but he was determined to die one." In May 1768, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives
in the legislature, a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May 1761, and he continued to be reelected annually
till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis then attending the
congress at New York. Thatcher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of lieutenant governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments,
of judge of probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty's Council in the legislature, his brother-in-law secretary
of state by the king's commission, a brother of that secretary of state a judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council;
now in 1760 and 1761 soliciting and accepting the office of chief justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded,
as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined
purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James's and their servile Parliament.

His indignation against him henceforward, to 1765 when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge,
for, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one in which he did not
invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could on all subjects of religion,
morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belle-lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics (Locke, Clark, Leibniz,
Bolingbroke, Berkeley), the preestablished harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment
of coincidences between their operations, fate, foreknowledge, absolute. We reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high
as Milton's gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he
added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town.

But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government
over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death.
From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, Parliament,
and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation; to annul all their charters, to constitute
them all royal governments; to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation; to apply that revenue to pay the salaries
of governors, judges, and all other Crown officers; and after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be
applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church
of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish
the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains
of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered
Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependants, adherents, and shoelickers entirely devoted. He asserted that
they were all engaged with all the Crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England in a deep and
treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country for their own private, personal, and family aggrandizement.

His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled,
not only in private, confidential conversations but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet
of "Summa Potestatis," and rarely mentioned him but by the name of "Summa." His liberties of speech were no secrets to his
enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. They
hated him worse than they did James Otis, or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father's
disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thatcher's character through life
had been so modest, decent, unassuming, his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated that they dared not attack him.
In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston
Cicero.

Mr. Thatcher's frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury
when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the
smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care
some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia Resolves:

Oh yes, they are men! They are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long
to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court and make a speech which shall be read after my death as my dying
testimony against this infernal tyranny they are bringing upon us.

Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been
confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people he would not have complained so pathetically of the "lethargy
and stupidity that prevailed," for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough and some of the people
proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thatcher soon died,
deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.

Another gentleman who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution was Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha's Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and
America by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George II, 1749, and by many other writings,
particularly a sermon in 1750 on January 30, on the subject of passive obedience and nonresistance, in which the saintship
and martyrdom of King Charles I are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was
read by everybody, celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies.

During the reigns of King George I and King George II, the reigns of the Stuarts (the two Jameses and the two Charleses) were
in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered
by their ancestors under those reigns had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to
revive all their animosity against tyranny in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism,
and inconsistency. David Hume's plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes
of the Stuarts, had not then appeared.

To draw the character of Mayhew would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his
great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death in 1766. In 1763
appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker on the charter and conduct
of the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. To form a judgment of this debate I beg leave to refer to a review
of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr.
Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close correct reasoning.

If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread a universal
alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension that bishops and dioceses and churches
and priests and tithes were to be imposed upon us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops
could appoint bishops in America without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us they could establish the Church
of England with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches as conventicles and
schism shops.

Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character,
his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment
to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.

Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think
that after mature investigation he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not "give the first impulse to the ball of independence,"
and that Otis, Thatcher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others were laboring for several years at
the wheel before the name of Mr. Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.

If you print this, I will endeavor to send you something concerning Samuel Adams, who was destined to a longer career, and
to act a more conspicuous and, perhaps, a more important part than any other man. But his life would require a volume.

By the end of the 1950s it had become apparent to many observers that the power struggle between East and West had developed
into a stalemate and, in particular, that the lines of demarcation between communism and the Western democracies had been
drawn in Europe and could not be changed without war. The United States had not liberated eastern Europe, nor was there any
real hope that it could; the Soviet Union had not extended its sphere either. The arms race had only increased the danger of any conflict between them; there could be no victory for either side, at least in traditional
senses of the term. In many speeches, notably the following address delivered at the University of Washington on November
16, 1961, President John F. Kennedy emphasized that America did not have unlimited power to control the world. He warned that
those people who sought easy answers, who demanded either peace at any price or total victory, who saw the alternatives as
being either “Red or dead,” were equally wrong and that their solutions would be equally disastrous. The only sane and effective
foreign policy in a nuclear age, he said over and over again, was one that combined willingness to negotiate and to compromise
with a determination to defend basic values.

In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our former allies has become our adversary--and
he has his own adversaries who are not our allies. Heroes are removed from their tombs, history rewritten, the names of cities
changed overnight.

We increase our arms at a heavy cost, primarily to make certain that we will not have to use them. We must face up to the
chance of war if we are to maintain the peace. We must work with certain countries lacking in freedom in order to strengthen
the cause of freedom. We find some who call themselves neutrals who are our friends and sympathetic to us, and others who
call themselves neutral who are unremittingly hostile to us. And as the most powerful defender of freedom on earth, we find
ourselves unable to escape the responsibilities of freedom and yet unable to exercise it without restraints imposed by the
very freedoms we seek to protect. We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination,
false promises, counterfeit mobs, and crises.

We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign, domestic,
friendly, and hostile.

We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediences of those who merely dictate
to their satellites. We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast less than 1 percent
of the vote in the General Assembly. We possess weapons of tremendous power, but they are least effective in combating the
weapons most often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, and civil disorder. We send arms to
other peoples--just as we can send them the ideals of democracy in which we believe--but we cannot send them the will to use
those arms or to abide by those ideals.

And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does
not always appeal to unreasonable men, that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath," and that right
does not always make might.

In short we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the
fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that
we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity,
and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.

These burdens and frustrations are accepted by most Americans with maturity and understanding. They may long for the days
when war meant charging up San Juan Hill, or when our isolation was guarded by two oceans, or when the atomic bomb was ours
alone, or when much of the industrialized world depended upon our resources and our aid. But they now know that those days
are gone and that gone with them are the old policies and the old complacencies. And they know, too, that we must make the
best of our new problems and our new opportunities, whatever the risk and the cost.

But there are others who cannot bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. They lack confidence in our long-run capacity
to survive and succeed. Hating communism, yet they see communism in the long run, perhaps, as the wave of the future. And
they want some quick and easy and final and cheap solution--now.

There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much alike in their approach. On the
one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender--appeasing our enemies, compromising our
commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed
the world of free choice would be smaller today.

On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement
and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.

It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices:
appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and
"soft" nations, hard and soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably
leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms buildup
means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers; the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits
its path will lead to disaster, but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes
of appeasement or constant intervention.

In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be more unrealistic. While both claim
to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no greater disservice. For this kind of talk and easy solution to difficult
problems, if believed, could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all--above all else--be united in
recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty among our allies when above all else
they must be confident in us. And even more dangerously, it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they
must above all be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.

The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another.
Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence,
while a willingness to talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster.

But as long as we know what comprises our vital interests and our long-range goals, we have nothing to fear from negotiations
at the appropriate time and nothing to gain by refusing to play a part in them. At a time when a single clash could escalate
overnight into a holocaust of mushroom clouds, a great power does not prove its firmness by leaving the task of exploring
the other's intentions to sentries or those without full responsibility. Nor can ultimate weapons rightfully be employed,
or the ultimate sacrifice rightfully demanded of our citizens, until every reasonable solution has been explored. "How many
wars," Winston Churchill has written, "have been averted by patience and persisting goodwill!...How many wars have been precipitated
by firebrands!"

If vital interests under duress can be preserved by peaceful means, negotiations will find that out. If our adversary will
accept nothing less than a concession of our rights, negotiations will find that out. And if negotiations are to take place,
this nation cannot abdicate to its adversaries the task of choosing the forum and the framework and the time.

For there are carefully defined limits within which any serious negotiations must take place. With respect to any future talks
on Germany and Berlin, for example, we cannot, on the one hand, confine our proposals to a list of concessions we are willing
to make, nor can we, on the other hand, advance any proposals which compromise the security of free Germans and West Berliners
or endanger their ties with the West.

No one should be under the illusion that negotiations for the sake of negotiations always advance the cause of peace. If for
lack of preparation they break up in bitterness, the prospects of peace have been endangered. If they are made a forum for
propaganda or a cover for aggression, the processes of peace have been abused.

But it is a test of our national maturity to accept the fact that negotiations are not a contest spelling victory or defeat.
They may succeed; they may fail. They are likely to be successful only if both sides reach an agreement which both regard
as preferable to the status quo--an agreement in which each side can consider its own situation can be improved. And this
is most difficult to obtain.

But, while we shall negotiate freely, we shall not negotiate freedom. Our answer to the classic question of Patrick Henry
is still "No." Life is not so dear and peace is not so precious "...as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery."
And that is our answer even though, for the first time since the ancient battles between Greek city-states, war entails the
threat of total annihilation, of everything we know, of society itself. For to save mankind's future freedom we must face
up to any risk that is necessary. We will always seek peace--but we will never surrender.

In short, we are neither "warmongers" nor "appeasers," neither "hard" nor "soft." We are Americans, determined to defend the
frontiers of freedom by an honorable peace if peace is possible, but by arms if arms are used against us. And if we are to
move forward in that spirit, we shall need all the calm and thoughtful citizens that this great university can produce, all
the light they can shed, all the wisdom they can bring to bear.

It is customary, both here and around the world, to regard life in the United States as easy. Our advantages are many. But
more than any other people on earth, we bear burdens and accept risks unprecedented in their size and their duration, not
for ourselves alone but for all who wish to be free. No other generation of free men in any country has ever faced so many
and such difficult challenges--not even those who lived in the days when this university was founded in 1861.

This nation was then torn by war. This territory had only the simplest elements of civilization. And this city had barely
begun to function. But a university was one of their earliest thoughts, and they summed it up in the motto that they adopted:
"Let there be light." What more can be said today regarding all the dark and tangled problems we face than: Let there be light.

Source: Department of State Bulletin, December 4, 1961: "Diplomacy and Defense: A Test of National Maturity."

Theodore Roosevelt, in his Autobiography (1913), discussed the presidential office in terms of what he called Buchanan Presidents and Lincoln Presidents. The former
category included those whose strict constitutional view led them to exercise power with undue restraint. Lincoln Presidents,
on the other hand, had used the office to its fullest extent, yet within the authority of the Constitution. Roosevelt, who
no doubt put himself in the Lincoln camp, regarded his successor (whose nomination Roosevelt had dictated) as a Buchanan President,
and strongly criticized Taft's conduct in office. In a series of lectures delivered at Columbia University in 1915 and 1916,
former President Taft answered Roosevelt's arguments with his own view of the office.

The true view of the executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly
and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and
necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed
in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public
interest. . . . The grants of executive power are necessarily in general terms in order not to embarrass the executive within
the field of action plainly marked for him, but his jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional
or statutory provision, or it does not exist.

There have not been wanting, however, eminent men in high public office holding a different view and who have insisted upon
the necessity for an undefined residuum of executive power in the public interest. They have not been confined to the present
generation. We may learn this from the complaint of a Virginia statesman, Abel P. Upshur, a strict constructionist of the
old school, who succeeded Daniel Webster as secretary of state under President Tyler. He was aroused by Story's commentaries
on the Constitution to write a monograph answering and criticizing them, and in the course of this he comments as follows
on the executive power under the Constitution:

The most defective part of the Constitution beyond all question, is that which related to the Executive Department. It is
impossible to read that instrument without being struck with the loose and unguarded terms in which the powers and duties
of the President are pointed out. So far as the legislature is concerned, the limitations of the Constitution are, perhaps,
as precise and strict as they could safely have been made; but in regard to the executive, the convention appears to have
studiously selected such loose and general expressions as would enable the President, by implication and construction, either
to neglect his duties or to enlarge his powers.

We have heard it gravely asserted in Congress that whatever power is neither legislative nor judiciary is, of course, executive,
and, as such, belongs to the President under the Constitution. How far a majority of that body would have sustained a doctrine so monstrous and so utterly at war with the whole genius
of our government it is impossible to say, but this, at least, we know, that it met with no rebuke from those who supported
the particular act of executive power, in defense of which it was urged. Be this as it may, it is a reproach to the Constitution
that the executive trust is so ill-defined as to leave any plausible pretense even to the insane zeal of party devotion for
attributing to the President of the United States the powers of a despot, powers which are wholly unknown in any limited monarchy
in the world.

The view that he takes as a result of the loose language defining the executive powers seems exaggerated. But one must agree
with him in his condemnation of the view of the executive power which he says was advanced in Congress. In recent years there
has been put forward a similar view by executive officials and to some extent acted on. Men who are not such strict constructionists
of the Constitution as Mr. Upshur may well feel real concern if such views are to receive the general acquiescence. Mr. Garfield,
when secretary of the interior under Mr. Roosevelt, in his final report to Congress in reference to the power of the executive
over the public domain, said:

Full power under the Constitution was vested in the executive branch of the government and the extent to which that power
may be exercised is governed wholly by the discretion of the executive unless any specific act has been prohibited either
by the Constitution or by legislation.

In pursuance of this principle, Mr. Garfield, under an act for the reclamation of arid land by irrigation which authorized
him to make contracts for irrigation works and incur liability equal to the amount on deposit in the Reclamation Fund, made
contracts with associations of settlers by which it was agreed that if these settlers would advance money and work, they might
receive certificates from the government engineers of the labor and money furnished by them, and that such certificates might
be received in the future in the discharge of their legal obligations to the government for water rent and other things under
the statute. It became necessary for the succeeding administration to pass on the validity of these government certificates.

They were held by Attorney General Wickersham to be illegal on the ground that no authority existed for their issuance. He
relied on the Floyd acceptances in 7th Wallace, in which recovery was sought in the Court of Claims on commercial paper in
the form of acceptances signed by Mr. Floyd when secretary of war and delivered to certain contractors. The Court held that
they were void because the secretary of war had no statutory authority to issue them. Mr. Justice Miller, in deciding the
case, said:

The answer which at once suggests itself to one familiar with the structure of our government, in which all power is delegated,
and is defined by law, constitutional or statutory, is that to one or both of these sources we must resort in every instance.
We have no officers in this government, from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under
the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority. And while some of these, as the President, the legislature, and the
judiciary, exercise powers in some sense left to the more general definitions necessarily incident to fundamental law found
in the Constitution, the larger portion of them are the creation of statutory law, with duties and powers prescribed and limited
by that law.

In the light of this view of the Supreme Court, it is interesting to compare the language of Mr. Roosevelt in his Notes for a Possible Autobiography on the subject of "Executive Powers," in which he says:

The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my administration, next to insistence upon courage, honesty, and
a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited
only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by Congress under its constitutional
powers. My view was that every executive officer and, above all, every executive officer in high position was a steward of
the people, bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people and not to content himself with the negative
merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt this view that what was imperatively necessary for
the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it.

My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such
action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to
be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power but I did
greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the common well-being of all our people whenever and
in whatever measure was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.

I may add that Mr. Roosevelt, by way of illustrating his meaning as to the differing usefulness of Presidents, divides the
Presidents into two classes and designates them as "Lincoln Presidents" and "Buchanan Presidents." In order more fully to
illustrate his division of Presidents on their merits, he places himself in the Lincoln class of Presidents and me in the
Buchanan class. The identification of Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Lincoln might otherwise have escaped notice, because there are
many differences between the two, presumably superficial, which would give the impartial student of history a different impression.

It suggests a story which a friend of mine told of his little daughter Mary. As he came walking home after a business day,
she ran out from the house to greet him, all aglow with the importance of what she wished to tell him. She said, "Papa, I
am the best scholar in the class." The father's heart throbbed with pleasure as he inquired, "Why, Mary, you surprise me.
When did the teacher tell you? This afternoon?" "Oh, no," Mary's reply was, "the teacher didn't tell me -- I just noticed
it myself."

My judgment is that the view of Mr. Garfield and Mr. Roosevelt, ascribing an undefined residuum of power to the President,
is an unsafe doctrine and that it might lead under emergencies to results of an arbitrary character, doing irremediable injustice
to private right. The mainspring of such a view is that the executive is charged with responsibility for the welfare of all
the people in a general way, that he is to play the part of a universal Providence and set all things right, and that anything
that in his judgment will help the people he ought to do, unless he is expressly forbidden not to do it. The wide field of
action that this would give to the executive, one can hardly limit. . . .

There is little danger to the public weal from the tyranny or reckless character of a President who is not sustained by the
people. The absence of popular support will certainly in the course of two years withdraw from him the sympathetic action
of at least one House of Congress, and by the control that that House has over appropriations, the executive arm can be paralyzed,
unless he resorts to a coup d'état, which means impeachment, conviction, and deposition. The only danger in the action of
the executive under the present limitations and lack of limitation of his powers is when his popularity is such that he can
be sure of the support of the electorate and therefore of Congress, and when the majority in the legislative halls respond
with alacrity and sycophancy to his will.

This condition cannot probably be long continued. We have had Presidents who felt the public pulse with accuracy, who played
their parts upon the political stage with histrionic genius and commanded the people almost as if they were an army and the
President their commander in chief. Yet, in all these cases, the good sense of the people has ultimately prevailed and no
danger has been done to our political structure and the reign of law has continued. In such times when the executive power
seems to be all prevailing, there have always been men in this free and intelligent people of ours who, apparently courting
political humiliation and disaster, have registered protest against this undue executive domination and this use of the executive
power and popular support to perpetuate itself.

The cry of executive domination is often entirely unjustified, as when the President's commanding influence only grows out
of a proper cohesion of a party and its recognition of the necessity for political leadership; but the fact that executive
domination is regarded as a useful ground for attack upon a successful administration, even when there is no ground for it,
is itself proof of the dependence we may properly place upon the sanity and clear perceptions of the people in avoiding its
baneful effects when there is real danger. Even if a vicious precedent is set by the Executive and injustice done, it does
not have the same bad effect that an improper precedent of a court may have; for one President does not consider himself bound
by the policies or constitutional views of his predecessors.

Throughout his life, James Madison was deeply concerned with the relationship between religious establishments and civil government.
He firmly believed that the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, clearly separated church and state and, furthermore, that this separation was fundamental to the health of the nation as a whole. While he was President, a
bill came before him calling for the chartering of an Episcopal church in Alexandria, Virginia. As would be expected from
this great advocate of religious freedom, he vetoed the bill and sent the following message to the House of Representatives
on February 21, 1811.

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act Incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of Alexandria,
in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following
objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil
and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that
"Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules
and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election
and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general
church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious
establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor
can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate
identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are
in general unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern
themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences
applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education
of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious
charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and
civil duty.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 1, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 489-490.

Presidential advisers spent much of 1934 considering programs for unemployment compensation and old-age benefits--important
planks in the Democratic platform of 1932. Unemployment compensation created numerous problems, largely because of conflict
between advocates of a national plan and proponents of state-operated plans. Old-age insurance, having had no precedent in
state legislation, was generally deemed suitable for a uniform federal program. In the following message to Congress of January
17, 1935, President Roosevelt presented the administration's proposal for a social security act. A bill was finally passed
on August 14. Like most of the New Deal legislation, social security was challenged as unconstitutional, but in May 1937 the
Supreme Court upheld the major provisions of the law.

In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the
security of the men, women, and children of the nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an
essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the
form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of
recommending the basis of legislation.

I am gratified with the work of this committee and of those who have helped it: The Technical Board of Economic Security,
drawn from various departments of the government; the Advisory Council on Economic Security, consisting of informed and public-spirited
private citizens; and a number of other advisory groups, including a Committee on Actuarial Consultants, a Medical Advisory
Board, a Dental Advisory Committee, a Hospital Advisory Committee, a Public Health Advisory Committee, a Child Welfare Committee,
and an Advisory Committee on Employment Relief. All of those who participated in this notable task of planning this major
legislative proposal are ready and willing at any time to consult with and assist in any way the appropriate congressional
committees and members with respect to detailed aspects.

It is my best judgment that this legislation should be brought forward with a minimum of delay. Federal action is necessary
to and conditioned upon the actions of states. Forty-four legislatures are meeting or will meet soon. In order that the necessary
state action may be taken promptly, it is important that the federal government proceed speedily.

The detailed report of the committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American
people. It has not attempted the impossible nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors
concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of states, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities,
and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts.

It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of federal legislation
for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for
the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious
to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea--a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the
world have already adopted it, and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable
project.

Three principles should be observed in legislation on this subject. In the first place, the system adopted, except for the
money necessary to initiate it, should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should
not come from the proceeds of general taxation. Second, excepting in old-age insurance, actual management should be left to
the states, subject to standards established by the federal government. Third, sound financial management of the funds and
the reserves and protection of the credit structure of the nation should be assured by retaining federal control over all
funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.

At this time, I recommend the following types of legislation looking to economic security:

Third, federal aid to dependent children through grants to states for the support of existing mother's pension systems and
for services for the protection and care of homeless, neglected, dependent, and crippled children.

Fourth, additional federal aid to state and local public-health agencies and the strengthening of the federal Public Health
Service. I am not at this time recommending the adoption of so-called health insurance, although groups representing the medical
profession are cooperating with the federal government in the further study of the subject, and definite progress is being
made.

With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should
be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory state unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this
is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all states cooperating with the federal government and to
promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the states. The 10 percent not thus offset should be
used to cover the costs of federal and state administration of this broad system. Thus, states will largely administer unemployment
compensation, assisted and guided by the federal government.

An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward
the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private
employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his
benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the
stabilization of private employment, federal legislation should not foreclose the states from establishing means for inducing
industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory
old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty
years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory
contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.
It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately
to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the
promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100 million.

The establishment of sound means toward a greater future economic security of the American people is dictated by a prudent
consideration of the hazards involved in our national life. No one can guarantee this country against the dangers of future
depressions, but we can reduce these dangers. We can eliminate many of the factors that cause economic depressions and we
can provide the means of mitigating their results. This plan for economic security is at once a measure of prevention and
a method of alleviation.

We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity--and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely
less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action
to attain the objectives sought in this report.

President Taft came to believe during the course of his administration that a number of reforms were needed to make the executive
and legislative branches of the government more responsive to one another. In a message to Congress in 1912, he suggested
a plan to allow a member of the Cabinet to be questioned by Congress when legislation affecting his department was being considered.
Taft's suggestions were eventually implemented. The opening portion of his message to Congress on December 19, 1912, appears
below.

This is the third of a series of messages in which I have brought to the attention of the Congress the important transactions
of the government in each of its departments during the last year and have discussed needed reforms.

I recommended the adoption of legislation which shall make it the duty of heads of departments -- the members of the President's
Cabinet -- at convenient times to attend the session of the House and the Senate, which shall provide seats for them in each
house, and give them the opportunity to take part in all discussions and to answer questions of which they have had due notice.

The rigid holding apart of the executive and the legislative branches of this government has not worked for the great advantage
of either. There has been much lost motion in the machinery due to the lack of cooperation and interchange of views face to
face between the representatives of the executive and the members of the two legislative branches of the government. It was
never intended that they should be separated in the sense of not being in constant effective touch and relationship to each
other. The legislative and the executive each performs its own appropriate function, but these functions must be coordinated.

Time and time again debates have arisen in each house upon issues which the information of a particular department head would
have enabled him, if present, to end at once by a simple explanation or statement. Time and time again a forceful and earnest
presentation of facts and arguments by the representative of the executive, whose duty it is to enforce the law, would have
brought about a useful reform by amendment, which in the absence of such a statement has failed of passage. I do not think
I am mistaken in saying that the presence of the members of the Cabinet on the floor of each house would greatly contribute
to the enactment of beneficial legislation. Nor would this in any degree deprive either the legislative or the executive of
the independence which separation of the two branches has been intended to promote. It would only facilitate their cooperation
in the public interest.

On the other hand, I am sure that the necessity and duty imposed upon department heads of appearing in each house and in answer
to searching questions, of rendering upon their feet an account of what they have done or what has been done by the administration,
will spur each member of the Cabinet to closer attention to the details of his department, to greater familiarity with its
needs, and to greater care to avoid the just criticism which the answers brought out in questions put and discussions arising
between the members of either house and the members of the Cabinet may properly evoke.

Objection is made that the members of the administration having no vote could exercise no power on the floor of the House
and could not assume that attitude of authority and control which the English parliamentary government have and which enables
them to meet the responsibilities the English system thrusts upon them. I agree that in certain respects it would be more
satisfactory if members of the Cabinet could at the same time be members of both houses, with voting power, but this is impossible
under our system; and while a lack of this feature may detract from the influence of the department chiefs, it will not prevent
the good results which I have described above, both in the matter of legislation and in the matter of administration. The
enactment of such a law would be quite within the power of Congress without constitutional amendment, and it has such possibilities
of usefulness that we might well make the experiment; and if we are disappointed the misstep can be easily retraced by a repeal
of the enabling legislation.

This is not a new proposition. In the House of Representatives, in the Thirty-eighth Congress, the proposition was referred
to a select committee of seven members. The committee made an extensive report and urged the adoption of the reform. The report
showed that our history had not been without illustration of the necessity and the examples of the practice by pointing out
that in early days secretaries were repeatedly called to the presence of either house for consultation, advice, and information.

President Lyndon Johnson's relations with Congress were extremely friendly during the first year or so after President John
Kennedy's death. Both Johnson and the legislators seemed to sense a widespread desire in the country to carry through on the
deceased president's program, and indeed to go beyond in significant respects what Kennedy probably could have done if he
had lived. One of the most important of such cooperative endeavours was the so-called “war on poverty,” inaugurated by Johnson in a message to Congress of March 16, 1964, that is reprinted here in part.

We are citizens of the richest and most fortunate nation in the history of the world. One hundred and eighty years ago we
were a small country struggling for survival on the margin of a hostile land. Today we have established a civilization of
freemen which spans an entire continent.

With the growth of our country has come opportunity for our people--opportunity to educate our children, to use our energies
in productive work, to increase our leisure--opportunity for almost every American to hope that through work and talent he
could create a better life for himself and his family.

The path forward has not been an easy one. But we have never lost sight of our goal--an America in which every citizen shares
all the opportunities of his society, in which every man has a chance to advance his welfare to the limit of his capacities.
We have come a long way toward this goal. We still have a long way to go.

The distance which remains is the measure of the great unfinished work of our society. To finish that work I have called for
a national war on poverty. Our objective: total victory.

There are millions of Americans--one-fifth of our people--who have not shared in the abundance which has been granted to most
of us, and on whom the gates of opportunity have been closed. What does this poverty mean to those who endure it? It means
a daily struggle to secure the necessities for even a meager existence. It means that the abundance, the comforts, the opportunities
they see all around them are beyond their grasp. Worst of all, it means hopelessness for the young.

The young man or woman who grows up without a decent education, in a broken home, in a hostile and squalid environment, in
ill health or in the face of racial injustice--that young man or woman is often trapped in a life of poverty. He does not
have the skills demanded by a complex society. He does not know how to acquire those skills. He faces a mounting sense of
despair which drains initiative and ambition and energy.

Our tax cut will create millions of new jobs--new exits from poverty. But we must also strike down all the barriers which
keep many from using those exits. The war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on
the generosity of others. It is a struggle to give people a chance. It is an effort to allow them to develop and use their
capacities, as we have been allowed to develop and use ours, so that they can share, as others share, in the promise of this
nation.

We do this, first of all, because it is right that we should. From the establishment of public education and land-grant colleges
through agricultural extension and encouragement to industry, we have pursued the goal of a nation with full and increasing
opportunities for all its citizens. The war on poverty is a further step in that pursuit. We do it also because helping some
will increase the prosperity of all. Our fight against poverty will be an investment in the most valuable of our resources--the
skills and strength of our people. And in the future, as in the past, this investment will return its cost manyfold to our
entire economy.

If we can raise the annual earnings of 10 million among the poor by only $1,000 we will have added $14 billion a year to our
national output. In addition we can make important reductions in public-assistance payments, which now cost us $4 billion
a year, and in the large costs of fighting crime and delinquency, disease and hunger.

This is only part of the story. Our history has proved that each time we broaden the base of abundance, giving more people
the chance to produce and consume, we create new industry, higher production, increased earnings, and better income for all.
Giving new opportunity to those who have little will enrich the lives of all the rest.

Because it is right, because it is wise, and because, for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty,
I submit, for the consideration of the Congress and the country, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The act does not merely
expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the
consequences of poverty. It can be a milestone in our 180-year search for a better life for our people.

This act provides five basic opportunities: It will give almost half a million underprivileged young Americans the opportunity
to develop skills, continue education, and find useful work; it will give every American community the opportunity to develop
a comprehensive plan to fight its own poverty--and help them to carry out their plans; it will give dedicated Americans the
opportunity to enlist as volunteers in the war against poverty; it will give many workers and farmers the opportunity to break
through particular barriers which bar their escape from poverty; it will give the entire nation the opportunity for a concerted
attack on poverty through the establishment, under my direction, of the Office of Economic Opportunity, a national headquarters
for the war against poverty.

This is how we propose to create these opportunities:

First, we will give high priority to helping young Americans who lack skills, who have not completed their education, or who
cannot complete it because they are too poor. The years of high school and college age are the most critical stage of a young
person's life. If they are not helped then, many will be condemned to a life of poverty which they, in turn, will pass on
to their children.

I therefore recommend the creation of a Job Corps, a work-training program, and a work-study program. A new national Job Corps
will build toward an enlistment of 100,000 young men. They will be drawn from those whose background, health, and education
make them least fit for useful work. Those who volunteer will enter more than 100 camps and centers around the country. Half
of these young men will work, in the first year, on special conservation projects to give them education, useful work experience,
and to enrich the natural resources of the country. Half of these young men will receive, in the first year, a blend of training,
basic education, and work experience in job-training centers.

These are not simply camps for the underprivileged. They are new educational institutions, comparable in innovation to the
land-grant colleges. Those who enter them will emerge better qualified to play a productive role in American society.

A new national work-training program operated by the Department of Labor will provide work and training for 200,000 American
men and women between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. This will be developed through state and local governments and nonprofit
agencies. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans badly need the experience, the income, and the sense of purpose which useful
full or part-time work can bring. For them such work may mean the difference between finishing school or dropping out. Vital
community activities from hospitals and playgrounds to libraries and settlement houses are suffering because there are not
enough people to staff them. We are simply bringing these needs together.

A new national work-study program operated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will provide federal funds
for part-time jobs for 140,000 young Americans who do not go to college because they cannot afford it. There is no more senseless
waste than the waste of the brainpower and skill of those who are kept from college by economic circumstance. Under this program
they will, in a great American tradition, be able to work their way through school. They and the country will be richer for
it.

Second, through a new community-action program we intend to strike at poverty at its source--in the streets of our cities
and on the farms of our countryside among the very young and the impoverished old. This program asks men and women throughout
the country to prepare long-range plans for the attack on poverty in their own local communities.

These are not plans prepared in Washington and imposed upon hundreds of different situations. They are based on the fact that
local citizens best understand their own problems and know best how to deal with those problems. These plans will be local
plans striking at the many unfilled needs which underlie poverty in each community, not just one or two. Their components
and emphasis will differ as needs differ. These plans will be local plans calling upon all the resources available to the
community--federal and state, local and private, human and material.

And when these plans are approved by the Office of Economic Opportunity, the federal government will finance up to 90 percent
of the additional cost for the first two years.

The most enduring strength of our nation is the huge reservoir of talent, initiative, and leadership which exists at every
level of our society. Through the community-action program we call upon this, our greatest strength, to overcome our greatest
weakness.

Third, I ask for the authority to recruit and train skilled volunteers for the war against poverty. Thousands of Americans
have volunteered to serve the needs of other lands. Thousands more want the chance to serve the needs of their own land. They
should have that chance.

Among older people who have retired, as well as among the young, among women as well as men, there are many Americans who
are ready to enlist in our war against poverty. They have skills and dedication. They are badly needed. If the state requests
them, if the community needs and will use them, we will recruit and train them and give them the chance to serve.

Fourth, we intend to create new opportunities for certain hard-hit groups to break out of the pattern of poverty. Through
a new program of loans and guarantees we can provide incentives to those who will employ the unemployed. Through programs
of work and retraining for unemployed fathers and mothers we can help them support their families in dignity while preparing
themselves for new work. Through funds to purchase needed land, organize cooperatives, and create new and adequate family
farms we can help those whose life on the land has been a struggle without hope.

Fifth, I do not intend that the war against poverty become a series of uncoordinated and unrelated efforts--that it perish
for lack of leadership and direction. Therefore this bill creates, in the Executive Office of the President, a new Office
of Economic Opportunity. Its director will be my personal chief of staff for the war against poverty. I intend to appoint
Sargent Shriver to this post. He will be directly responsible for these new programs. He will work with and through existing
agencies of the government....

What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It
cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front. Were this so we would have conquered poverty long ago.
Nor can it be conquered by government alone.

For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening
our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation.

Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation,
not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy. Today, for the first time in our history,
we have the power to strike away the barriers to full participation in our society. Having the power, we have the duty.

The Congress is charged by the Constitution to "provide...for the general welfare of the United States." Our present abundance
is a measure of its success in fulfilling that duty. Now Congress is being asked to extend that welfare to all our people.

The President of the United States is President of all the people in every section of the country. But this office also holds
a special responsibility to the distressed and disinherited, the hungry and the hopeless of this abundant nation....

On similar occasions in the past we have often been called upon to wage war against foreign enemies which threatened our freedom.
Today we are asked to declare war on a domestic enemy which threatens the strength of our nation and the welfare of our people.
If we now move forward against this enemy--if we can bring to the challenges of peace the same determination and strength
which has brought us victory in war--then this day and this Congress will have won a secure and honorable place in the history
of the nation and the enduring gratitude of generations of Americans yet to come.

The Monroe Doctrine, in Monroe's handwriting, 1823
The Granger Collection, New York City

The Monroe Doctrine comprised some general remarks on foreign policy that President James Monroe included in his annual message
to Congress on December 2, 1823. The first draft of the message included a reproof to the French for their invasion of Spain,
an acknowledgment of Greek independence in the revolt against Turkey, and some further indications of American concern in
European affairs. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams argued for the better part of two days against such expressions, which were finally eliminated from the message. "The ground
that I wish to take," Adams noted in his Diary, "is that of earnest remonstrance against the interference of the European powers by force in South America, but to disclaim
all interference on our part with Europe; to make an American cause, and adhere inflexibly to that." Despite the ambiguities
that have surrounded the application of this policy since its inception, one theme was clear: There were two worlds, the Old
and the New; each must lead its separate existence, always aware of a bond between them, but never intervening in the affairs
of the other.

A precise knowledge of our relations with foreign powers as respects our negotiations and transactions with each is thought
to be particularly necessary. . . .

At the proposal of the Russian Imperial government, made through the minister of the emperor residing here, full power and
instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation
the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been
made by His Imperial Majesty to the government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The government of the
United States has been desirous, by this friendly proceeding, of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached
to the friendship of the emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his government.

In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion
has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved,
that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not
to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the
condition of the people of those countries and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely
be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the
globe with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested
spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of
their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have
never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced
that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.

With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious
to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect
from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments; and to the defense
of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened
citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor
and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt
on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with
the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration
and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling
in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their
recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment
of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable
to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be
adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed
by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a
question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and
surely none more so than the United States.

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of
the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider
the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those
relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries
from none. But in regard to those continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that
the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and
happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord.

It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to
the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be
obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves,
in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.

Source: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, vol. 2, James D. Richardson, ed., 1920, pp. 207-220.

In March 2008, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. presidency, Barack Obama came under fire for his association with Jeremiah Wright, the fiery minister of Obama's church, Trinity United Church of
Christ, on the South Side of Chicago. As particularly inflammatory segments of Wright's sermons appeared on YouTube and sound bites were broadcast on many radio stations, Obama denounced his pastor's statements. When that strategy proved
ineffective, he delivered the following speech on race in America, which was at least in part an effort to contextualize Wright's remarks. In a series of appearances in April,
Wright himself effectively rejected Obama's efforts to ease anxieties about him, and the then-senator was forced to give up
his church membership. Nevertheless, Obama's discourse on race proved a remarkably nuanced and thoughtful essay on a topic
that has divided the United States from the time of the country's settlement.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these
simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had
traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of
slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave
trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution—a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people
liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and
creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive
generations who were willing to do their part—through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil
war and civil disobedience and always at great risk—to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of
their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign—to continue the long march of those who came before
us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency
at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together—unless
we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the
same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction—towards a better future for
our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my
own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was
overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to
a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners—an inheritance we pass on to our two precious
daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country
on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup
the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts—that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people
were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding
victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have
deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the
South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in
terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly
divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other
end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential
not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly
offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some,
nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.
Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree
with many of his political views? Absolutely—just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or
rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's
effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view
that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;
a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged
at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems—two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy,
a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements
of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another
church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless
loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt
that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce
me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up
the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years
led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth—by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy,
providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into
the rafters.... And in that single note—hope!—I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches
across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories—of survival, and freedom, and
hope—became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on
this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.
Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories
and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study
and cherish—and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black
community in its entirety—the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches,
Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and
shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence
and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black
experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family
to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have
I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy
and respect. He contains within him the contradictions—the good and the bad—of the community that he has served diligently
for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother—a
woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything
in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than
one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I
suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We
can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that
Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America—to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point
that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities
of race in this country that we've never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we
walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges
like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial
injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American
community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal
legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black
and white students.

Legalized discrimination—where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted
to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access F[ederal] H[ousing] A[dministration] mortgages,
or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments—meant that black families could not amass any
meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and
white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for
one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families—a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.
And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods—parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular
garbage pick-up and building code enforcement—all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt
us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the
late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.
What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds;
how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make
it—those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future
generations—those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons,
without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories
of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may
not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around
the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for
a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people
are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated
hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention
from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American
community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply
wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists
between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't
feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience—as far as they're
concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only
to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures,
and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a
zero-sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town;
when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because
of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods
are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped
shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan
Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators
built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality
as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits
of the middle class squeeze—a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term
greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And
yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they
are grounded in legitimate concerns—this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my
critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single
election cycle, or with a single candidacy—particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction—a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people—that working
together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the
path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past.
It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our
particular grievances—for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs—to the larger aspirations of all Americans—the
white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives—by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our
children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives,
they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American—and yes, conservative—notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend
Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also
requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as
if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country—a country that has made it possible for one
of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich
and poor, young and old—is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know—what we have seen—is that America can
change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope—the audacity to hope—for what
we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community
does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination—and current incidents of discrimination,
while less overt than in the past—are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds—by investing in our
schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing
this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize
that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of
black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand—that
we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's
keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle
race only as spectacle—as we did in the O.J. trial—or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina—or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them
from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow
believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one.
And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want
to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and
Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't
learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do
not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take
them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and
the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want
to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that
the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed
together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized
and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families,
and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans
want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.
And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next
generation—the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particular that I'd like to leave you with today—a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking
on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina.
She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she
was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was
let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something
to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and
really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign
was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems
were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't.
She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign.
They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man
who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific
issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there
because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I'm here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black
man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course
of the two-hundred and twenty-one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection
begins.

Anyone who has taken the oath I have just taken must feel a heavy weight of responsibility. If not, he has no conception of
the powers and duties of the office upon which he is about to enter, or he is lacking in a proper sense of the obligation
which the oath imposes.

The office of an inaugural address is to give a summary outline of the main policies of the new administration, so far as
they can be anticipated. I have had the honor to be one of the advisers of my distinguished predecessor, and, as such, to
hold up his hands in the reforms he has initiated. I should be untrue to myself, to my promises, and to the declarations of
the party platform upon which I was elected to office, if I did not make the maintenance and enforcement of those reforms
a most important feature of my administration. They were directed to the suppression of the lawlessness and abuses of power
of the great combinations of capital invested in railroads and in industrial enterprises carrying on interstate commerce.
The steps which my predecessor took and the legislation passed on his recommendation have accomplished much, have caused a
general halt in the vicious policies which created popular alarm, and have brought about in the business affected a much higher
regard for existing law.

To render the reforms lasting, however, and to secure at the same time freedom from alarm on the part of those pursuing proper
and progressive business methods, further legislative and executive action are needed. Relief of the railroads from certain
restrictions of the antitrust law have been urged by my predecessor and will be urged by me. On the other hand, the administration
is pledged to legislation looking to a proper federal supervision and restriction to prevent excessive issues of bonds and
stock by companies owning and operating interstate commerce railroads.

Then, too, a reorganization of the Department of Justice, of the Bureau of Corporations in the Department of Commerce and
Labor, and of the Interstate Commerce Commission, looking to effective cooperation of these agencies, is needed to secure
a more rapid and certain enforcement of the laws affecting interstate railroads and industrial combinations.

I hope to be able to submit at the first regular session of the incoming Congress, in December next, definite suggestions
in respect to the needed amendments to the antitrust and the interstate commerce law and the changes required in the executive
departments concerned in their enforcement.

It is believed that with the changes to be recommended American business can be assured of that measure of stability and certainty
in respect to those things that may be done and those that are prohibited which is essential to the life and growth of all
business. Such a plan must include the right of the people to avail themselves of those methods of combining capital and effort
deemed necessary to reach the highest degree of economic efficiency, at the same time differentiating between combinations
based upon legitimate economic reasons and those formed with the intent of creating monopolies and artificially controlling
prices.

The work of formulating into practical shape such changes is creative word of the highest order, and requires all the deliberation
possible in the interval. I believe that the amendments to be proposed are just as necessary in the protection of legitimate
business as in the clinching of the reforms which properly bear the name of my predecessor.

A matter of most pressing importance is the revision of the tariff. In accordance with the promises of the platform upon which
I was elected, I shall call Congress into extra session to meet on the 15th day of March, in order that consideration may
be at once given to a bill revising the Dingley Act. This should secure an adequate revenue and adjust the duties in such
a manner as to afford to labor and to all industries in this country, whether of the farm, mine, or factory, protection by
tariff equal to the difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, and have a provision
which shall put into force, upon executive determination of certain facts, a higher or maximum tariff against those countries
whose trade policy toward us equitably requires such discrimination. It is thought that there has been such a change in conditions
since the enactment of the Dingley Act, drafted on a similarly protective principle, that the measure of the tariff above
stated will permit the reduction of rates in certain schedules and will require the advancement of few, if any.

The proposal to revise the tariff made in such an authoritative way as to lead the business community to count upon it necessarily
halts all those branches of business directly affected; and as these are most important, it disturbs the whole business of
the country. It is imperatively necessary, therefore, that a tariff bill be drawn in good faith in accordance with promises
made before the election by the party in power, and as promptly passed as due consideration will permit. It is not that the
tariff is more important in the long run than the perfecting of the reforms in respect to antitrust legislation and interstate
commerce regulation, but the need for action when the revision of the tariff has been determined upon is more immediate to
avoid embarrassment of business. To secure the needed speed in the passage of the tariff bill, it would seem wise to attempt
no other legislation at the extra session. I venture this as a suggestion only, for the course to be taken by Congress, upon
the call of the Executive, is wholly within its discretion.

In the mailing of a tariff bill the prime motive is taxation and the securing thereby of a revenue. Due largely to the business
depression which followed the financial panic of 1907, the revenue from customs and other sources has decreased to such an
extent that the expenditures for the current fiscal year will exceed the receipts by $100,000,000. It is imperative that such
a deficit shall not continue, and the framers of the tariff bill must, of course, have in mind the total revenues likely to
be produced by it and so arrange the duties as to secure an adequate income. Should it be impossible to do so by import duties,
new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among these I recommend a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and
as certain and easy of collection.

The obligation on the part of those responsible for the expenditures made to carry on the Government, to be as economical
as possible, and to make the burden of taxation as light as possible, is plain, and should be affirmed in every declaration
of government policy. This is especially true when we are face to face with a heavy deficit. But when the desire to win the
popular approval leads to the cutting off of expenditures really needed to make the Government effective and to enable it
to accomplish its proper objects, the result is as much to be condemned as the waste of government funds in unnecessary expenditure.
The scope of a modern government in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people has been widened far beyond the principles
laid down by the old "laissez faire" school of political writers, and this widening has met popular approval.

In the Department of Agriculture the use of scientific experiments on a large scale and the spread of information derived
from them for the improvement of general agriculture must go on.

The importance of supervising business of great railways and industrial combinations and the necessary investigation and prosecution
of unlawful business methods are another necessary tax upon Government which did not exist half a century ago.

The putting into force of laws which shall secure the conservation of our resources, so far as they may be within the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government, including the most important work of saving and restoring our forests and the great improvement
of waterways, are all proper government functions which must involve large expenditure if properly performed. While some of
them, like the reclamation of arid lands, are made to pay for themselves, others are of such an indirect benefit that this
cannot be expected of them. A permanent improvement, like the Panama Canal, should be treated as a distinct enterprise, and
should be paid for by the proceeds of bonds, the issue of which will distribute its cost between the present and future generations
in accordance with the benefits derived. It may well be submitted to the serious consideration of Congress whether the deepening
and control of the channel of a great river system, like that of the